the BNP will stop you.

I do not submit to no one. If you want to live in a muslim country go move else where.

wait till the mighty thor swings his hammer,and the non-aryans get kicked out of OUR LAND,
RAGNAROCK IS COMING!

Er - I don't think so matey! Islam will never rule Brittania

Sonia-

Do you believe all the attrocities that you have mentioned, are part of the teachings of Islam, or just some Muslims behaving badly?

If you believe Islam teaches Muslims to act in that murderous way, What solution do you propose to combat this evil amongst us?

Regards

To Mpac Staff

Why did you remove Sonia's post?

I read that post and she had a good arguement. We should be given a chance to rebut her argument, but instead by removing it you've made her argument seem like it hit Muslim's were it hurts

Which is untrue

<b>MPACUK Mod: If comments are breaking the rules and regulations we will remove the posts in question.
<p>
The comments policy can be found on this link <p>http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2056/. <p>

Thank you.</b>

Were Sonia's comments breaking the rules or are you talking about mine?

To "Defender" keep taking the pills. Did you enjoy watching Big Brother?

To "VOTE FREEDOM" you're using a double negative. Since you live here you really should learn to write English properly.

To "Sonia" I've read your posts before. You are a Zionist and therefore your Islamophobic attitude is unsurprising. Also, stop pretending to be English.

To "england belongs to me" you are proof that "care in the community" does not work. BTW England is spelt with a capital "E" my dear boy.

To "Mike" I'll make this nice and easy for you, no big words. London not England you spaz.

Interesting how Islamophobia is still the last acceptable prejudice.

sonia proof is in the pudding as the saying goes and i shall endeavour to show you the pudding as it is.
muslims ruled spain for nearly 800 years,today 98 per cent of spanairds are christians,india was ruled for nearly 1000 years today 85 per cent of indians are hindus,the balkans were ruled by muslims for 400 years today 80 per cent of the balkans are christians.
until several centuries ago north-central and south america was 100 per cent non christian,today 90 per cent of people are christians,would you care to exlpain this to us and if you have problems with reality it involves the death and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people.
it is quite easy to slander others but reality is hard to take,today muslim nations are invaded and occupied,everyday hundreds of terror attacks are carried out against innocent iraqis-afghans-chechens-kashmiries and palestinians for daring to demand freedom from occupiers and oppressers.
who ever wrote this article needs to get a grip on reality,london or britain for that matter will not be becoming a majority muslim place for a few centuries.

Like it or not islam is set to supersede them all. Your childrens destiny lies with it. Do not make the same mistakes as the mongols, they were mighty and powerful, yet they were only defeated by a muslim army in Ain Jalut and that turned out to be the final defeat.

We do not aim to conquer, in fact you will realise the futility of your endevours and you will beg to be relesed from your miserable lives.

The piece is an interesting description of what an Islamic London might be, but it actually says more about the writer than anything else and perhaps highlights the extent to which some Muslims are isolated from this society.

Britain is a complex nation built upon about two thousand years of written history. As a country it pre-dates nearly every other European state. It has experienced things which no Muslim state has ever experienced, and these have shaped the British nation.

If Britain were to become a Muslim nation by the majority converting to Islam, it would not be a one-way process. The British Islam would be very different to that of Asia simply because the British have an undeniable collective history that shapes its ideas. And those ideas are so powerful that Islam would bend, not the other way around.

Britain is liberal, open and fairly tolerant for a reason and not by accident. The writer of the article would do well to study British history in depth and then reconsider the image of the Future that he conjures up. Perhaps concentrating on the 17th Century when religion really mattered here and ideas abounded! Understand UK in the 17th C, and you can understand why the USA is like it is. Perhaps he might like to compare / contrast the New Model Army and Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and consider the lessons.

Nice try though....

MPAC to put such an article will only further split the communities!!! You make me feel ashamed. Why are u trying to increase religous tension? What is your point in displaying this article, it will achieve nothing but anger!!!!!

At least we know now there are silent BNP supporters that read this website as well. Once again I think you are very ignorant for posting such a thing, espicially when tensions are already high.

Jamaal, you are so right that it is making us angry. The MPAC does not care about that though. I really believe that they think we have submitted or something. The British people have for centuries needed to defend this land and culture, we do it very well, we are quite used to it. However, it does take a real threat to emerge, which we can all see, to be bothered to stir ourselves to deal with the problem. Please have a look at our history, be warned and behave yourselves.

ROB Know History

muslims ruled spain for nearly 800 years,today 98 per cent of spanairds are christians.. Do u know why?

When Catholic Spain is invaded by Muslim moors and was occupied, they converted many to Islam - The catholics fought back and regained Spain and re-converted back. The same goes with balkans.

Spain was not muslim in the first place. Now, think of Saudi Arabia - 100% muslim (Earlier Pagans & Jews were in Saudi)

So, think before you write.

This is a futile debate that will entrench opinions even further. C'mon MPAC stop lighting the torch paper.

History Teacher/aka Bob

You make me laugh!! Your version of history would even make a non-Muslim fall on the floor with laughter. Your claim that the moors forced the Spaniards to convert to Islam is simply not true.

When the moors ruled Spain, the majority of people by their own choice became Muslims because they liked the benefits the Islamic state had to offer.

No-one was forced to convert because (A) It was against the teachings of Islam and(B) Lot of non-Muslims came to Muslim Spain and learnt from the Muslims about science, Maths, algebra and chemistry. The reason Europe is a technological advanced continent is because what they learnt from the Moor Muslims at that time.

Lot of leading historians have commented that Muslim Spain was a beacon of tolerance. The only place in Europe where a Muslims, Christians and Jews all had equal rights. There were even Jewish and Christian members of the Caliph's government.

Some leading academics have also commented that if the Muslim's didn't rule Spain, Europe would still be in the dark ages.

Now the story of how they converted back.

The Muslims were defeated by Christian Europe because the Caliph concentrated on making Spain a centre of learning (which it was) but he neglected to spend any money on the armed forces. The Catholics of Europe invaded Spain fought and defeated the Muslims and the Muslims retreated to North Africa.

When the Catholics took control of Spain, then they enforced something called the Spanish Inquisition. (I'm sure you've heard of it)
In the Inquisition Spanish Muslims and Jews were FORCED to convert to Catholocism or die. Lot of Muslims and Jews were put to death by the Catholic Church for choosing not to convert and some converted under duress. Even the Christians who lived in Spain under Muslim rule were saddened by the fact that these religious zealots have taken over.

I am not making this up, you just have to google The Spanish Inquistion, and you'll get to know the truth about what really happened there.

That's why Spain is 98% Christian.

I bet now you understand what Rob was trying to tell you.

THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE!

History-Teacher

BTW Saudi Arabia is NOT 100% Muslim. There are atleast 15 million Coptic Christians living in Saudi Arabia.

You know what that means. Coptic Christians for generations. It also means that these Arab Christians were around at the time of the Prophet Muhammed. And we all know that Muhammed (pbuh) finaly became a ruler of all Arabia. Why didn't he force them to convert. The Muslim arab rulers who took over arabia after the Prophet Muhammed,
why didn't they force the Christians to convert.

The Fact that these christians are living in Saudi Arabia and living as equal citizens till this day, are bearing witness to tha fact that Muslims DID not force Islam by the sword

Raja77,

You make laugh.. You say In Islam there is no compulsion - what a lie.

"When the moors ruled Spain, the majority of people by their own choice became Muslims because they liked the benefits the Islamic state had to offer."

Tell your jokes to some one else. not to a History professor

What a joke! Take a look at Inventions & scientists - Jews and christians top the list.

Btw, why do many muslims immigrate to christian countries? Ever thought of that?

Speaking on Saudi Arabia - A person carrying Bible is rewarded death recently. Forget Copts!

history teacher or bob you still have not answered my question about the americas,if you had answered that you would know why spain is 98 per cent christian.
just to clarify on raja77 the arab world has around 15 million coptic christians and the non arab muslims world has people of all diffrent beleifs.
reality is hard to take but when it comes to holocausts-genocides and extermination so called christians win hands down compared to muslims.

"Whoever allies himself with the Kaffirs against the believers - he is one of them. So those so-called enemies to Allah who join the British Government - 'cos remember the British Government, my dear Muslim brothers, are crusaders... crusaders come to kill and rape Muslims. Whoever joins them - he who joins the British Army, the American Army, he is a mortal kaffir and his only hukum is for his head to be removed. Indeed, whoever changes his deen, kill him."

Rob/Raja - I've Proof both from Past and Present.

Just an example.

Sep. 14, 2004 : Canadian journalist Scott Taylor was seized earlier this month by Iraqi jihadists and held for a terrifying, brutal five days. Chained, handcuffed and blindfolded, he was subjected to death threats and beatings that pushed him "close to the breaking point." Pleading and bargaining for his life, he decided to fake a conversion to Islam.

I told them that if I was about to die, a man shouldn't go to his death without a God. And when they said I wouldn't be killed right away, I said a man needs to pray to a God who has just saved him. They were skeptical, but then they began to believe I was serious. "All you have to say is that ‘There is no God but Allah, there is no prophet but Mohammad'."

The ploy succeeded; Taylor was released on a highway leading to border with Turkey and is soon planning to return to Canada.


Try to convince others, not me..

Another example:

Aug. 28, 2006 : Two Fox News television journalists kidnapped in Gaza faked conversions to Islam at the end of their two-week abduction. Steve Centanni (60, American) and Olaf Wiig (36, from New Zealand), were made to convert to Islam just hours before their release. They appeared in a video, dressed in Arab robes, announcing their conversion, and criticizing U.S. and British foreign policy in the Middle East. Centanni explained: "They forced us to convert to Islam at gunpoint. I have the highest respect for Islam and learned a lot of very good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had guns and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

History Teacher

Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out clearer than error
(Holy Quran)

If you don't believe me look it up. As a Muslim I will never lie about what is in the Quran.

Jews and christians do not top the list.
The Muslim contribution to science is recorded in history. If the Muslims didn't teach the Europeans, about certain aspects of science the Europeans would have never known anything about science. Lot of Islamic books were translated into Europeans languages for the European masses.

Cut and paste the link below

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/Introl3.html

The reason Muslims immigrate to christian countries is because the Europeans have sucked the life out of the Muslim countries. Took their natural resources, bankrupt the institutions, put tinpot dictators to run the country who torture their own people, but have friends in high places. especially in London and Washington. So the Muslims have no choice but to come to European countries as economic migrants.

As for the person who got killed in Saudi Arabia for carrying a bible was killed by these tinpot dictators who the west support.

A true Muslim will never kill non-Muslim citizens of his Muslim country.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out clearer than error
(Holy Quran)"

I am not that foolish to believe. The same Quran says:

"Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."


"Jews and christians do not top the list." - A Lie. You've just said you dont lie; I dont believe in you.


"The reason Muslims immigrate to christian countries is because the Europeans have sucked the life out of the Muslim countries."

Cool story. Tell me what is a "Muslim country" ? When was it made first? Muslims invaded Asia, Africa and Europe. But, when christians fought back, you call it oppression, tyranny.. bonkers.

I find this amazing hypocrisy in many:

" When Muslims occupy non-muslim countries, it is not OCCUPATION; But, when Non-muslims fight back, it is called OCUPATION, OPPRESSION, TYRANNY etc.. "

"A true Muslim will never kill non-Muslim citizens of his Muslim country."

Your Prophet ordered to kill muslims who leave Islam. Is that Tolerance (or) Compuslion of Religion?

History Teacher

You are beginning to sound even more of a fake. You cite Fox News as a reliable source. What a Joke!! Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is a committed Zionist and Islamophobe. His news coporation is bias at the best of times.

Having said that, I do believe that there is some truth in the News you have reported. But that is in no way representing Islam. Some Muslims are misguided and mislead, but forcing someone to convert is against the teachings of Islam. If Muslims are forcing people it has nothing to do with Islam except in their twisted version of it.

Raja77,

I laugh at the way you jump to conclusions. Two Fox journalists were kidnapped by Muslims in Gaza => doesn't imply this is FOX NEWS ZIONIST Propaganda.

Try al-jazeera and you'll find the same news (Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were made to convert to Islam just hours before their release.)

HISTORY TEACHER

Read the second paragraph of my last post.

RAJA 77

I've read it. Why did you write the first paragraph? Don't you know there is no compulsion of religion/forced conversion in Christianity?

History Teacher

I do know that there is no compulsion in religion in Christianity. But christians did force people. (The Spanish inquisition)

But I have the understanding to know that force conversions have nothing to do with Christianity, but some christians did practice it.

But you don't have that understanding to know that force conversions have nothing to do with Islam although some Muslims may practice it.

That's where your argument falls.

"But christians did force people. (The Spanish inquisition)"

Wheras Muslims did force people starting from Saudi to Middle East Asia, India, Pakistan, South Philippines, Africa, Europe etc..

"But you don't have that understanding to know that force conversions have nothing to do with Islam although some Muslims may practice it."

History shows that Islam spread through Forcible conversions right from Madina, Saudi Arabia (from Mohammed's time).

History Teacher

"History shows that Islam spread through Forcible conversions right from Madina, Saudi Arabia (from Mohammed's time)."

Then I have a few questions

Why are there Christians, Jews and pagans in the Muslim world today?

Why were there Jewish and Christians in Jerusalem who have been living there for generations from the time of Umar(ra) till the emergence of the Zionist state? Why have they not converted to Islam, were they not forced?

Muslims ruled India, why are the majority of Indians non-Muslims?

Which Muslim army invaded Indonesia which is now the largest Muslim populated country in the world?

PS. I don't even think that you are a history teacher.

Answer my questions please, I would love to read your reply.

History teacher you cite two examples were people were allegedly kidnapped by masked men and then we are told they were forced to accept islam.
so who was behind the masks,if these people were muslims then i am sure they would be proud to claim that they have converted these people to islam.
we all know about spin and p.r and fox news is what pravda was to the soviet union.
hearsay is nice but facts speak for themselves,if you want to check what muslims gave the world then check the 1001 inventions website or better watch the programme what the ancients gave us.
the fact that more than 700,000 iraqis have been slaughtered under american occupation led by a christian extremist who says god talks to him does not bother you but news reporters claiming we were forced to become muslims is more important,the fact that journalists will try everthing to get a good story that sells does not give you any doubts.
I am still awaiting a response to how the americas are 90 per cent christian after a few centuries.

"Why are there Christians, Jews and pagans in the Muslim world today?"

Because they survived the Islamic conversions and paid taxes. There are very few Jews and christians in Islamic countries. There are no pagans.

"Why were there Jewish and Christians in Jerusalem who have been living there for generations from the time of Umar(ra) till the emergence of the Zionist state? Why have they not converted to Islam, were they not forced?"

Because Jerusalem was liberated from Muslim rulers by non-muslims.


"Muslims ruled India, why are the majority of Indians non-Muslims?"

Because British ruled India after liberating India from Muslims.

PS. I don't even think that you know basic facts let alone history.

ROB:

"History teacher you cite two examples were people were allegedly kidnapped by masked men and then we are told they were forced to accept islam."

Rob go to aljazeera and search for these journalists. There is no spin nor lies only facts. These are just 2 examples there are lot many.

700,000 iraqis were killed by whom? Muslims themselves.
Shias kill sunnis; sunnis kill shias; today sunnis attacked shia mosque. In gaza, fatah kill hamas and hamas kill fatah.

Btw, how come African, MiddleEastAsia and some European countries become Islamic? I am looking for your answers too.

history teacher i think you have slipped and the truth has appeared even from your distorted knowledge of history.
you have rightly stated the reasons why christians and jews are still living in muslim countries is because they were given a invitation to two things accept islam or pay the jizya which would expemt them from military service and they would be protected by the state,the muslims paid zakat and the non muslims paid jizya.
so you see there was no forced conversion of anyone they were given frre choice to convert to islam or retian their own religion.
i whole heartedly thank you for alerting this fact to us.
BTW it would be wise not to let the indians knoW that you are claiming to have saved them because their memory of brItish occupAtion is very diffrent from yours,since they just celebrated their first attempt to throw of british occupAtion.
also they remember the extermination of around 15 to 29 million indians using food as a weapon,they also cherish the signs the british hung outsIde their residences and offices,NO DOGS AND INDIANS ALLOWED.

To Rob/Raja:

Today Hamas Killed 9 Muslims; Sunnis blow up a Shia mosque.


At least nine more Palestinians were killed on Wednesday taking the death toll to 55 in the last four days.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/177ED4A8-6E3E-4DE1-AE48-BC2F5940660B.htm

A series of blasts have destroyed two minarets at an already damaged Shia shrine in the northern Iraqi town of Samarra.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, also called for restraint.

"He condemns the attack and urges calm and not to do acts of reprisal against Sunnis," Hamed Khafaf, Sistani's spokesman, said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8F3DF99B-2FA2-4314-84BA-4478D98E1EF2.htm

History teacher since you do not have the courage to answer my question i shall answer yours.
the arabs accepted islam after they were given the invitation over a period of time,today arab countires are populated by the offspring of those arabs.
africans accepted islam over a period of many centuries today the offspring of those africans reside in those countries.
can you please tell me were the hundreds of millions of native americans have gone to as today the majority of americans are immigrants,what happend to those native people is what i am waiting a response for.

ROB:

"you have rightly stated the reasons why christians and jews are still living in muslim countries is because they were given a invitation to two things accept islam or pay the jizya"

Which destroys the Myth that "there is no compulsion of religion in Islam"

So, rob, people who are poor were forcibly converted to islam as they have no money to pay tax. Only few rich jews & christians survived.

India, if it wasn't ruled by the British, it would have become islamic. Because India was ruled by the British, there is atleast freedom of religion and democracy there.

ROB:

"the arabs accepted islam after they were given the invitation over a period of time,today arab countires are populated by the offspring of those arabs."

Wrong. Arabs accepted islam after they were threatened with War. Today arab countires are populated by the offspring of those arabs

"africans accepted islam over a period of many centuries today the offspring of those africans reside in those countries."

africans accepted islam over a period of many centuries because they were slaves to Arab rulers.

history teacher yesterday americans killed 7 afhgan soldeirs,the week before they killed 25 afghan civilains,the week before that they killed 18 afghan civilians.
in iraq eveyday they kill dozens,in the last two weeks isarel killed around 50 palestinains.
all the nations you mention are under occupation,so we cannot trust any news that is controlled and comes from the occupiers.
in palestine american backed and israeli armed criminals led by dahlan a known israeli stooge are trying to overthrow the democratically elected palestinain government,it is the right of that government to maintain law and order and if criminals want to create anarchy then the government shall act.
you can teach us hsitory when there is no occupation as our pm and president bush said there can be no free or fair elections uder occupation and i add there can be no peace and stabilty under occupation.

history twister i am stil waiting for you answer as to why the americas are 90 per cent christian after a few centuries.
if after a thousand year rule of india muslims did not force the peopel to convert to islam,do you think 150 years of british rule saved them,goes to show your claim of being history teacher should be revised to history twister.
BTW Dr-Goebells would be proud of you as he stated tell a lie and repeat it often enough and people will believe it,he might have been right with the nazis they had brainwashed but the world knew better just as it does today.

History Teacher

lol, I have just shown your post to a non-Muslim friend of mine and he is in stitches. He is having trouble containing his laughter. This non-Muslim friend of mine is a pagan originally from Iran, where his family still live and are happy under Iranian Muslim Rule. By the way he is a Zorastrian, he shares the same faith as Freddie Mercury. Zorastrian's have pagan status in Iran and are given equal rights. He tells me that they have been living there for centuries and their religion was there 1000 years before Islam came to Persia.

Even though lot of Zorastrians became Muslim, some kept their faith and they made a pact with the Muslims that they will live side by side with Muslims.

No Muslim ruler ever interfered with the faith of the Zorastrians.

There are a few Jews and Christians in Muslim lands but they are there and they are not made second class citizens like the Jews were made in Europe. Some tinpot dictators do treat the Christians
and Jews with harshness but I want them removed from power as a Muslim as much as you do.

As for those survivng the conversion because they paid taxes is completley what I am talking about. Then that proves that there is no compulsion in religion, if there was then they would have been forced to convert and to hell with their taxes.

Muslims also paid a tax they weren't exempt you know. As did Christians in England to the monarchy. As I do today to the Blair Government. There is nothing wrong with paying taxes.

As for Jerusalem, it was under Muslim rule for 400 years before the crusade war started, during that time there were Muslims, Jews and Christians all living side by side. It was the crusaders who came and massacred all the Muslims, Jews and Christians too.

When the Crusaders took control of Jerusalem they massacred everyone, not even the women and children were spared.

They ruled for 200 years before it was taken back by the Muslims led by Saladen. And after the Muslims took it back, they protected the rights of the Jews and Christians of Jerusalem. The Muslims ruled for a further 800 years. Now 800 + 400 = 1200 years. That was enough time to forcibly convert non-Muslims living in Jerusalem. It was in 1914 when the non-Muslims took control of Jerusalem and Palestine, and there were still Christians and Jews living there.

As for India being taken over by the British that was also after 1000 years of Muslim rule. In that 1000 years there was enough time to forcibly convert the Indians. But no that didn't happen did it.

And you are telling me that I don't know the basic facts. I think you need to re-do your history test.

ROB:

" if after a thousand year rule of india muslims did not force the peopel to convert to islam,do you think 150 years of british rule saved them,goes to show your claim of being history teacher should be revised to history twister. "

1000 years of Islamic rule - converted many indians to muslims

400 + years of British rule - converted none.

Today Muslims are around 20% in India
Christians are 2%

You are the real twister

How come America became 90% christian? Read American history - Puritans travelled from England and settled there.

Lol Raja I've posted this to an Indonesian ex-muslim. He is laughing at your post. He is the living testimony of torture. He was threatened, tortured, stripped of his assets by the muslim rulers there.

He lives nearby to the place of this massacre.

Three girls have been beheaded and another badly injured as they walked to a Christian school in Indonesia.

A bomb in May in the nearby town of Tentena, which is predominantly Christian, killed 22 people and injured over 30.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4387604.stm

"history teacher yesterday americans killed 7 afhgan soldeirs,the week before they killed 25 afghan civilains,the week before that they killed 18 afghan civilians.
in iraq eveyday they kill dozens,in the last two weeks isarel killed around 50 palestinains."

Rob, how can i trust your news as it is anti-west. (just like you dont believe that fatah and hamas or sunni and shia fight with each other citing western news sources)

Taliban killed many women, children citing sharia law. Saddam massacred his people. But those doesn't bother you because it's ok if muslims kill fellow muslims. But, if some non-muslims get involved, there's this talk of Oppression.

what about sudan darfur? what about nigeria? what about south philippines? what about lebanon?

there must be a limit

HISTORY TWISTER I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER,YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED WELL TO COUNTER A QUESTION WITH ANOTHER QUESTION.
I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS NOW DO THE DECENT THING AND ANSWER MY QUESTION.
AFTER A FEW CENTURIES WHY ARE THE AMERICAS 90 PER CENT CHRISTIAN AND MAJORITY IMMIGRANTS.

History Teacher

Its feels like we are going in circles here. I've told you before Muslims acting in this way is not because of Islam but because of their twisted Ideology. They think it's Islamic but it is not. Just like the Catholics thought they were doing God's work when they massacred women and children in Jerusalem during the Crusade Wars. But I know that had nothing to do with Christianity or Catholicism, just a few mislead Christians.

It's sad that you still haven't grasped this concept yet.

Read my prevoius posts

Here's my cut and paste answer to your cut and paste

Islam and the Jews

Firstly let me clear some misconceptions concerning what Muslims think about the Jews and the questions asked by many non-Muslims about the Muslim attitude towards the Jews. Before we figure out for real, who the one with the attitude is, the following points should be kept in mind as to what Muslims think of the Jews and other non-Muslims :

1.) Muslims do not hate Jews (the general population) or other non-Muslims. They are as much human as we are. We are ordered by Allah to show mercy to all humanity. We thank Allah we were born Muslims but we are never sure whether we shall die as Muslims or not. We love Muslims and love non-Muslims to become Muslims. We are told in the Quran there is no compulsion in religion. Whosoever makes a choice makes it to his/her own good. It is between Allah and him/her. Irrespective if someone is a Muslim or a non-Muslim we are ordered strictly to follow the guide lines of justice and equality when dealing with both without discrimination. However Muslims as being Muslims are brothers to each other.

2.) We condemn Zionists and Zionism (Elites controlling Israel) and we condemn Israel persecuting Palestinians. We condemn the racist agenda of Israel. Our condemnation for Zionism is shared by the countries throughout the world with the exception of USA and a few others. This was proven when Israel was declared a racist state by the world community in South Africa.

3.) The Quran calls the Jews and Christians ‘people of the book’.

4.) There are a large number of people 'among' the Jews who have an evil agenda.

5.) Christians believe the Jews that allegedly killed Christ were evil. Jesus was allegedly crucified by the general consent and support of the Jews at the time. Similarly Muslims think that in general the influential people of the Jews of Medina at the time of the Prophet had evil plans.

Who were the Jews of Medina?

At the time of the Prophet there were Jews living inside and around Medina. The tribes we are going to discuss and of whom Mr Sina has totally wrong information are the Bani-Kainuka, Bani-Nazir and Bani-Kureizha.

The Jewish scholars of Arabia, and the Jews in general, before the Prophet became famous as the 'new prophet' were waiting for that savior of humanity which was clearly mentioned in their scriptures. Being people of the book which the pagan Arabs were not, they were certain the prophet would arise from amongst themselves. In that regard, they thought of themselves as being superior to the other Arabs.

But to their dismay instead of one of their own people, the Prophet claimed prophethood and started growing popular everyday. So much so that he came to Medina as the leader of the local Medinite tribes of Aus and Khazraj. The Aus and Khazraj (forgetting their feuds) rallied around him and accepted him as their prophet along with his followers. In order to unite the Ansar and the Muhajirin (Emigrants) the Prophet established a brotherhood between them, which linked them together in sorrow and in happiness. Yathrib (old name of Medina) changed its ancient name, and was styled Medinat un-Nabi or the " City of the Prophet ". All this happened with the Jews of Medina watching this new prophet steal away what they thought should have been their honour and glory.

The ill feeling of animosity grew with every success the Prophet had with the people of Medina, more so because of the Muslim victory of Badr which in a way legitimized and made famous his prophethood throughout Arabia.

The famous pact of Medina and its terms

On the arrival of the Prophet at Medina they had joined with the Muslims in a half-hearted welcome to the Prophet. The Prophet upon his arrival joined the heterogeneous and conflicting elements of the city and its suburbs through a Charter by which the rights and obligations of the Muslims and of the Muslims and Jews were clearly defined. The Jews because of the irresistible character of the brotherly movement had gladly accepted the pact.

This pact was officially made between the tribes living in Medina. The Jews of Bani-Kainuka Ban-Kuraizha and Bani-Nadir gladly accepted all the terms. This famous pact proceeds as follows:

"The state of peace and war shall be common to all Muslims ; no one among them shall have the right of concluding peace with, or declaring war against, the enemies of his co-religionists. The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and vexations ; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices : the Jews of the various branches of 'Auf, Najjar, Harith, Jashm, Th'alaba, Aus, and all others domiciled in Yathrib (Medina), shall form with the Muslims one composite nation; they shall practise their religion as freely as the Muslims ; the clients and allies of the Jews shall enjoy the same security and freedom ; the guilty shall be pursued and punished ; the Jews shall join the Muslims in defending Yathrib against all enemies ; the interior of Yathrib shall be a sacred place for all who accept this Charter ; the clients and allies of the Muslims and the Jews shall be respected as the patrons ....."

This pact was concluded with the terms:

" All future disputes between those who accept this Charter shall be referred, under God, to the Prophet. "

Hostility of the Jews

No kindness or generosity, however, on the part of the Prophet would satisfy the Jews ; nothing could conciliate the bitter feelings with which they were animated. Enraged by the Prophet's tremendous success they soon broke off (secretly) , and ranged themselves on the side of the enemies of the 'new' Faith. They reviled the Prophet ; they twisted their tongues and mis-pronounced the Quranic words and the daily prayers and formulae of Islam, rendering them meaningless, absurd, or blasphemous; and the Jewish poets and poetesses, of whom there existed many at the time, outraged all common decency and the recognised code of Arab honour and chivalry by lampooning in obscene verse the Muslim women. But there were minor offences. Not satisfied with insulting the Muslim women and reviling the Prophet, they sent out emissaries to the enemies of the State, the protection of which they had formally accepted.

Success is always one of the greatest criterions of truth. Even in the Early days of Christianity, the good Pharisee said, " Let them alone; if these men be false, they will come to naught, or else you yourselves shall perish. "

The fact that Islam survived against all odds in Its early years is indeed a miracle and a proof of its truth. Hostility was shown to Muslims from the whole of Arabia, as has always been the custom of humanity when dealing with a new faith. The Muslims small in number were supported by none but themselves during their early years in Medina. The Meccans were plotting against them and had the support of many other tribes of Arabia all of whom were determined to wipe this new faith off the face of the Earth. The animosity and hatred of the Meccans and other tribes of Arabia in general resulted in numerous battles between themselves and the Muslims. Each and every single day was a new trial for the Muslims.. At times the anxiousness of the Muslims rose to such an extent that it was mentioned in the Quran. One example is the battle of Ahzab when the Jews of Bani Kureizha being the inhabitants of Medina having a few fortresses in the rear joined the Meccans and thousands of other tribesman when they surrounded Medina. The Muslims were put to a tremendous trial which is mentioned in the Quran:

"When they assailed you from above you and from below you, and when your eyes became distracted, and your hearts came up into your throats, and ye thought divers thoughts of God, then were the Faithful tried, and with strong quaking did they quake ; and when the disaffected and diseased of heart said, "God and His Apostle have made us but a cheating promise." (Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab)

So-called assassinations

Our atheist friends fail to understand the nature of these so-called assassinations carried out under the supervision of the Prophet. For our Christian friends there is no need for an explanation as rightly pointed out by Syed Ameer Ali:

Our Christian historians forget that the " wise " Solon himself, for the safety of his small city, made it obligatory on the Athenians to become executioners of the law, by pursuing the factious, or taking one of two sides in a public riot. They also forget that even the laws of Christian England allow any person to pursue and kill "an outlaw".

The problem however mostly concerns our atheist friends. But to understand fully what 'really' happened with these people and why were they "so unjustly assassinated" let us take a look at the conditions and a few examples.

Among the not so technologically advanced nations of those times poets occupied the position and exercised the influence of the press in modern times. Of course there is nothing wrong with 'freedom of the press' but death sentence for a traitor is a just punishment agreed upon by even the most modern laws. The Jews were under obligations to the pact they had made with the Muslims. All the inhabitants of Medina had pledged to be united under a single commonwealth. Any individual found guilty of 'collaborating with the enemy' as we call it in modern times was a traitor and was to be pursued and punished according to the pact.

The Muslim Scholars and the knowledgeable Muslims are not bewildered of the modernists' view point that death sentence for any crime whatsoever is contrary to humanism. If someone kills another in times of peace or war, he should be killed in return. An eye for an eye. If another seeks to damage you breaking his word (or pact in the case of the Jews) then should he also be dealt with the most efficient means. Many Israeli commentators have made remarks on CNN and BBC how if 'someone pulls out a knife at us we have the policy of pulling out a gun'. It's common sense they say. That is probably the reason why for one Israeli we have two dozen Palestinians murdered every time. Of course the fact that the Palestinians have lost their homes and their lands to the hegemonic designs of Israelis, a fact fully accepted by the whole world community has no significance in the eyes of the Israeli Government..... "Islam is a religion of common sense" remarked Bernard Shaw. But what were the conditions that lead to such measures, let us see.....

Treachery and fate of Abu Uzza

An example of the influence which poets and rhapsodists exercised among unprogressed nations is afforded by one of the episodes connected with war of Ohod. Whist preparing for this eventful campaign, the Koreish requested a poet of the name of Abu Uzza to go round the tribest of the desert, and excited them by his songs and poetry against the Muslim, and persuade them to join the confederacy, formed under the auspices of the Meccans, for the destruction of Mohammed and his followers. This man had been taken prisoner by the Muslims in the battle of Badr, but was released by the Prophet, without ransom, on pledging himself never again to take up arms against the Medinites. In spite of this, he was tempted to break his word, and went round the tribes, rousing them to arms by his poetry; and it is said he was eminently successful in his work. After Ohod he was again taken prisoner and executed by the Muslims ; Ibn Hisham p. 591.

Jewish poets provoked hatred of Muslims in spite of being under an official pact

The Jewish poets by their superior culture naturally exercised a vast influence among the Medinites; and this influence was chiefly directed towards sowing sedition among the Muslims, and widening the breach between them and the opposing faction. The defeat of the idolaters at Badr was felt as keenly by the Jews as by the Meccans.

Fate of Ka'ab, the son of Ashraf

Immediately after this battle a distinguished member of their race, called Ka'b, the son of Ashraf, belonging to the tribe of Nazir, publicly deploring the ill-success of the idolaters, proceed towards Mecca. Finding the people their plunged in grief, he spared no exertion to revive their courage. By his satires against the Prophet and his disciples, by his elegies on the Meccans who had fallen at Badr, he succeeded in exciting the Korish to that frenzy of vengeance which found vent on the plains of Ohod. Having attained this object, he returned to his home near Medina in the canton of Nazir, where he continued to attack Mohammed and the Musulmans in ironical and obscene verses, not sparing even the women of the Believers whom he addressed in terms of the grossest character. His acts were openly directed against the commonwealth of which he was a member. (The Jews and Medinites were under a pact of helping each other if attacked by a foreign power) He belonged to a tribe which had entered into the Compact with the Muslims, and pledged itself for the internal as well as the external safety of the State. Another Jew of the Nazir, Abu Rafe Sallam, son of Abul Hukaik, was equally wild and bitter against the Musulmans. He inhabited, with a fraction of his tribe, the territories of Khaibar, four or five days journey to the north-west of Medina. Detesting Mohammed and the Musulmans, he made use of every endeavourer to excite the neighbouring Arab tribes, such as the Sulaim and the Ghatafan, against them. It was impossible for the Musulman commonwealth to tolerate this open treachery on the part of those to whom every consideration had been shown, wit the object of securing their neutrality, if not their support. The very existence of Muslim community was at state; and every principle of safety required that these traitorous designs should be quietly frustrated. The sentence of outlawry was executed upon them by the Medinites themselves - in one case by a member of the tribe of Aus, in the other by a Khazrijite.

Controversialists have stigmatised these executions as "assassinations". And because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals, in their prejudice against the Prophet, they shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and the necessity of a swift and secret execution. There existed then no police court, no judicial tribunal, nor even a court-martial, to take cognisance of individual crimes. In the absence of a State executioner any individual might become the executioner of the law. These men had broken their formal pact ; it was impossible to arrest them in public, or execute the sentence in the open before their clans, without causing unnecessary blood-shed, and giving rise to the feud of blood, and everlasting vendetta. the exigencies of the State required that whatever should be done should be done swiftly and noiselessly upon those whom public opinion had arraigned and condemned.

What happened to Bani-Kanika, Qureizha and Bani-Nadir? (The Authentic Version)

I call this version Authentic and Historical because it is accepted by all historians. The term 'historians' refers to actual learned people who wrote and witnessed history or students who have undergone years of study of not only the different accounts but also of the people who presented these accounts. They do not include the religious or anti-religious controversialists. The fate of the above mentioned three tribes of Median is agreed upon by non-Muslims and Muslim historians except for a few minor variations which will be pointed out. I urge anyone seriously looking for the true versions to verify these accounts through books of renowned modern non-Muslim scholars and then take from the 'majority' view. This version here has been scrutinised by Orientalists and is in agreement with their view point.

The fate of Bani-Kainuka

We must keep in mind that before the affair of Bani-Kainuka took place the hostility of the Jews of Medina had reached its pinnacle. The Muslims had just defeated and humiliated the Meccans although being out numbered three to one in the battle of Badr. This tremendous success fired the hatred the Jews felt for the Muslims. They now openly showed their hostility of the Muslims and would not waste any opportunity to support anyone planning against them. Although they had not openly taken up arms against them they were so hostile towards the Muslims that it was just a matter of time when a major feud would erupt between them. The incident which took place at that point left the Prophet with only two choices, either to let the Bani-Kainuka stay and eventually fight them in a major battle in Medina or banish them. We shall see now what happened...

Whilst the other Jewish tribes were chiefly agricultural, the Banu-Kainuka hardly possessed a single field or date plantation. There were for the most part artisans employed in handicraft of all kinds. Seditious and unruly, always ready for a broil the Banu-Kainuka especially were also noted for the extreme laxity of their morals. One day a young girl from the country came to their bazaar or market (Suk) to sell milk. The Jewish youths insulted her grossly. A Muslim passer-by took the part of the girl, and in the fraw which ensued the author of the outrage was killed; whereupon the entire body of the Jews present rose and slaughtered the Muslim. A wild scene then followed. The Muslims, enraged at the murder of their compatriot, flew to arms, blood flowed fast, and many were killed on both sides. At the first news of the riots, Mohammed (pbuh) hastened to the spot, and, by his presence, succeeded in restraining the fury of his followers. He at once perceived what the end would be of these seditions and disorders ( practiced by the Jews for so long) if allowed to take their course. Medina would be turned into an amphitheatre, in which members of hostile factions might murder one another with impunity. It was necessary to at once put a stop to this or fight the Jews openly. The Prophet (pbuh) therefore ordered the Bani-Kainuka to vacate Medina. The reply of the Jews was couched in the most offensive terms which also depicted the jealously they had in their hearts of the Muslims' victory at Badr:

"O, Mohammed, do not be elated with the victory over your people (the Koreish). Thou hast had an affair with men ignorant of the art of war. If though art desirous of having any dealings with us, we shall show thee that we are men."

*All historians agree to this reply with the exception of Gibbon who for unknown reasons has narrated an excessively meek reply.

They then shut themselves up in their fortress, and set Mohammed's authority at defiance. A siege was accordingly laid to their stronghold. After fifteen days they surrendered. It must be kept in mind that they surrendered 'after' an open war was declared between the Muslims and the Jews and having surrendered they were at the mercy of the Muslims to do with them as they pleased. There were still simply banished which had initially been demanded of them.

The fate of Bani-Nazir

The expulsion of Bani-Kainuka made the already bitter taste in the mouth of the Jews even more bitter. This bitter feeling of animosity reached such an extent that plans were made to execute the Prophet (pbuh) just as he had ordered the killing of their two traitors (mentioned earlier). They therefore waited for an opportunity for Mohammed (pbuh) to come into their midst. The background of what happened is as follows:

The Muslims suffered considerable losses in the Battle of Ohod. The moral effect this disastrous battle was at once visible in the forays which the neighboring nomads prepared to make on the Medinite territories. Most of them, however, were repressed by the energetic action of Mohammed, though some of the hostile tribes succeeded in enticing in enticing Muslim missionaries into their midst, under the pretence of embracing Islam, and then massacred them. On one such occasion seventy Muslims were treacherously murdered near a brook called Bir-Ma'uana, within the territories of two tribes, the Bani-Amir and the Bani-Sulaim, chiefly through the instrumentality of the latter. One of the two survivors of the slaughter escaped towards Medina. Meeting on the way two unarmed Arabs belonging to the Bani-Amir who were traveling under a safe-conduct of the Prophet (pbuh) ,and mistaking them for enemies, he killed them. When the Prophet(pbuh) heard of this he was deeply grieved. A wrong had been committed by one of his followers, though under a mistake, and the relatives of the men that were killed were entitled to redress. Accordingly orders were issued for collecting the diyat(blood money) from Muslims and the people who ad accepted the Charter. The Jewish tribes of Bani un-Zair , the Kuraizha, and others were bound equally with the Muslims to contribute towards this payment.

*W. Muir and Sprenger have garbled this part of the affair. W. Muir does not find any authority for MC. de Perceval's saying, that the Jews were bound by treaty to contribute towards the Diyat. However if he had referred to Tabari he would have seen the relevant statements.

Murderous plan failed

The Prophet himself, accompanied by a few disciples, proceeded to the Bani un_Nazir, and asked from them their contribution. The Banu-Nazir were already waiting for a favorable opportunity to rud themselves of the Prophet and therefore looked upon his arrival as providential. . They seemingly agreed to the demand, and requested him to wait a while. Whilst sitting with his back to the wall of a house, he observed sinister movements amongst the inhabitants, which led him to divine their intention of murdering him. He immediately left the place immediately and thus saved himself and his disciples.

The Bani - Nazir could not be trusted again. On his arrival Mohammed sent them a message of the same import as that which was sent to Kainuka. Relying on the support of the Munafikun, Abdullah Bin Ubbay and his supporters, the Bani Nazir returned a defiant answer. Disappointed, however, in the promised assistance of Abdullah, and of their brethren, the Bani-Kureizha, after a siege of fifteen days they sued for terms. Again, no additional penalty was inflicted on them after surrendering and only the previous offer was renewed and they agreed to evacuate their territories.

The fate of Bani-Kuraizha

Mr Sina has criticized the sentence carried out on the Bani-Kureizha the most. We shall however take a look at what really happened and then see what historians had to say about the event.

The Invasion of Medina by a strong Army of Ten Thousand well-appointed men:

While all the abovementioned affairs were being dealt with the enemies of Medinites i.e. the Meccans and other Arabian tribes were by no means idle. Far and wide they had sent their emissaries to stir up the tribes against the Muslims. The Jews were the most active in these efforts. Some of the Bani-Nazir had remained behind with their brethren settled near Khaibar, and there, fired with the hope of vengeance, had set themselves to the work of forming another league for the destruction of the Muslims. Their efforts were successful beyond their utmost hopes. A formidable coalition was soon formed ; and an army, consisting of then thousand well-appointed men, marched upon Medina, under the command of the relentless Abu Sufian (Leader of Mecca).

Meeting no opposition on their way, they soon encamped within a few miles of Medina, on its most vulnerable side, towards Ohod. To oppose his host the Muslims could only muster a body of three thousand men. Forced thus by their inferiority in numbers, as well as by the factious opposition of the Munafikun (hypocritical allies) within the city, to remain on the defensive, they dug a deep trench round the unprotected quarters of medina, and, leaving their women and children for safety in their fortified houses, they encamped outside the city, with the moat in front of them.

Call to Bani-Kuraizha to fulfill the pact and their traitorous answer

In the meantime the Muslims relied for safety of the other side, if not upon the active assistance ( which also they were bound to give according to the pact ), at least upon the neutrality of the Bani- Kuraizha, who possessed several fortresses at a short distance, towards the south-east, and were bound by the Compact to assisted the Muslims against every assailant. These Jews however were persuaded by the idolaters to violate their pledged faith, and to join the Koreish. As soon as the news of their defection reached Mohammed, he deputed Saad Ibn Muad and Saad Ibn Ubada, to entreat them to return to their duty. The reply was defiant and sullen:

"Who is Mohammed, and who is the Apostle of God that we should obey him? There is no bond or compact between us and him!".

As these Jews were well acquainted with the locality, and could materially assist the besiegers by showing them the weak points of the city, the consternation among the Muslims became great, whilst the disaffected body within the walls increased the elements of danger.

The Meccans eventually Flee

The Meccans and the Jews failing in all their attempts to draw the Muslims into the open field, or to surprise the city under the direction of the Jewish guides, determined upon a regular assault. The siege had already lasted twenty days. the restless tribes of the desert, who had made common cause with the Koreish and their Jewish allies, and who had expected an easy prey, were becoming weary of this protracted campaign. Great efforts were made at this critical moment by the leaders of the beleaguering host to cross the trench and fall upon the small Muslim force. Every attempt was, however, repulsed by untiring vigilance on part of the Prophet. The elements now seemed to combine against the besieging army; their horses were perishing fast, and provisions were becoming scanty. Disunion was rife in their midst, and the far-seeing Prophet with matchless prudence, fomented it into actual division. Suddenly this vast coalition, which had seemed to menace the Muslims with inevitable destruction, vanished into thin air. In the darkness of night, amidst a sort of wind and rain, their tents overthrown, their lights put out, Abu Sufian and the majority of this formidable army fled, the rest took refuge with the Bani- Kureizha.

The Siege of Bani-Kureizha

Now came the affair of the Bani- Kureizha. The victory in the opinion of the Muslims was hardly achieved as long as the Bani-Kureizha remained so near, and in such dangerous proximity to Medina. They had proved themselves traitors in spite of their sworn alliance, and had at one time almost surprised medina from their side, an even which, if successful, would have involved the general massacre of the Muslims. The Jews were therefore besieged and compelled to surrender in discretion.

The condition for Surrender put forward by Bani-Kureizha

The Jews made only one condition, that their punishment should be left to the judgment of the Ausite (Of the tribe of Aus) chief, Sa'd Ibn Muaz. This man, a fierce soldier who had been wounded in the attack, and indeed died from his wounds the next day, infuriated by their treacherous conduct, gave the sentence that the "fighting men" should be put to death, and that the women and children should become the slaves of the Muslims ; and this sentence was carried into execution.

"It was a harsh, bloody sentence, " says Lane-Poole, "worthy of the Episcopal generals of the army against the Albigenses, or of the deeds of the Augustan age of Puritanism ; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State during a time of siege ; and those who have read how Wellington's march could be traced by bodies of deserters and pillagers hanging from the trees , need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan."

These traitorous Jews brought their fate upon themselves. If they had been put to death, even without the judgment of Sa'd, it would have been in consonance with the principles which then prevailed. But they themselves had chosen Sa'd as the sole arbiter and judge of their fate ; they knew that his judgment was not at all contrary to the received notions and accordingly never murdered. They knew that if they had succeeded they would have massacred their enemies without compunction.

People judge the massacres of King David according to the "lights of his time". Even the fearful slaughters committed by the Christians in primitive times are judge according to the certain "lights". Why should not the defensive wars of the early Muslims be looked at from the same standpoint? But whatever the point of view, an unprejudiced mind will perceive that no blame can possibly attach to the Prophet in the execution of the Bani-Kureizha.

How many were executed?

The majority of historians agree the number of men executed could not have been more than 200 or 250.

Conclusion

Human nature is so constituted that, however criminal the acts of an individual may be, the moment he is treated with severity which to our mind seems harsh or cruel, a natural revulsion of feeling occurs, and the sentiment of justice gives place to pity within our hearts. However much we may regret the fate of the Jews should have been, thought at their own special request, left in the hands of an infuriated soldier, however much we may regret that sentence of this man should have been so carried into effect- we must not , in the sentiment of pity, overlook the stern question of justice and culpability. We must bear in mind the crimes of which they were guilty- their treachery, their open hostility, their defection from an alliance to which they were bound by every sacred tie.

The fact that we have allowed, over the last 30 years, millions of muslims to immigrate to our (western and christian) countries, is the biggest mistake of european politics since the appeasement of Daladier and Chamberlain towards Hitler.

In the coming years and decades we and the generations after us, will pay a heavy price for that.rom

Millions of muslims did not emigrate in the last 30 years but this has been a ongoing process in the last 100 years,due to colonisation of muslim countries and the fact that during world war two when around 80 million people were killed,most eurpean nations had to bring in young manpower to replace the killed.
most of the immigrants came at the request of eurpean nations after world war two.
as to whether that was a mistake or not we can agree to have our opinions in this matter,I for one think these people who came as young fit man gave their all doing 60 to 70 hours a week doing hard back breaking jobs to help rebuild european economies.

This pathetic, ludicrous argument over ancient myths & history is an archetypal example of the idiocy of religious thought in general (and it's so revealing about the thought processes of the majority of the deranged supporters of this website). Brilliant fun. MPAC shoots itself in the head again. What a fantastic back-catalogue of idiotic 'debates' you've now created!

"Follow the gourd!"
(as they say in 'The Life Of Brian')

One thing that the comments from the bnp explains is how evil the invasion of Iraq, afghanistan, the story palestine and kashmir and other places in the world really is....... it's all about the white man's attempts to dominate the world and force them to convert to christianity.

Many Muslims try to convert people so what is wrong with that at least they do it without use force or bribes. Unlike the Johava Witnesses who bribe poor, small, children in Africa to convert to Christianity with toys. How sick is that? This is on going and you do not hear Christians speaking out against this.

I'm an English Christian who is aware that for British citizens to find comfort in any faith is their constitutional right. Nonetheless I find the hypocrisy and disingenousness in this material both obvious and worrying as regards organised colonisation and religious supremacism. Is Lahore's future Protestant? Is Beirut's future Catholic? Is Kabul's future Jewish? Hurts does'nt it? Does that hurt make you christian-ophobic and racist? Nope. Neither does my pain when i read disingenous Islamic supremacist articles like this make me Islamohobic or racist.

Thnk about this. The huge huge majority of Muslims in Britain are not ethnic white Britains. To state you wish them to own and run London, the British capital city is tantamount to ethnic colonisation and supremcism. Which is what the racist BNP say that non British ethnic groups are all about.

Please retract the article and apologise for any offence caused to non Muslim ethnically British Brits.

RE: Why America is Cristian

Because the British settlers who gained dominance over that land and built a new nation on it were Christians.