The Islamic Brew of Racism, Apartheid, and Slavery By Eileen F. Toplansky December 29, 2017 While the world is in a dither about America recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, it is, predictably, totally unconcerned about the constant and ongoing practice of "legally or culturally enforced discrimination and/or persecution based on a person's race or national identity" – to wit,apartheid – in the Muslim world. Consider that: Arab League states discriminate against and exclude Palestinians because of their national identity. Palestinian refugees have been denied citizenship for two generations or more in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Palestinians have been expelled from many Middle Eastern countries – e.g., Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, and Iraq. In Lebanon, Palestinians must live in designated areas, cannot own homes, and are barred from 70 occupations. And yet, every year, universities across America host Israel Apartheid Week despite the fact that "Israel actually is the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East – a state whose Arab population enjoys full equality before the law and more prerogatives than most ethnic minorities in the free world, from the designation of Arabic as an official language to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal days of rest." Contrast this with the fact that Muslim religiously based apartheid continues, since "Muslims historically view themselves as superior to all others and consider non-Muslims or kuffars as dhimmis." Thus, Christians, Jews, and Bahá'í remain second-class citizens throughout the Muslim world. Racism is rampant in the Arab world, and "Africans of sub-Saharan descent are held in deep contempt, a vestige of the region's historical role as epicenter of the international slave trade." ~Snip~ Nonie Darwish writes that "Islam is very useful for totalitarian regimes. Islam provides weak governments with a legal and religious formula that enables totalitarian control and forces the submission of citizens." She emphasizes that "the appeal of Islam to Western leftist politicians, who should know better, defies logic." Darwish asserts that "one and a half billion Muslims are living under the slavery of Islam, and they will never truly rebel as long as they can simply leave for the West – where they will work to impose sharia on the rest of us." We have been warned. Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...mic_brew_of_racism_apartheid_and_slavery.html ~~~~ Great article and kudos to Ms. Toplansky and it's why I have said for years that there are no moderate Muslims. In order to be a Muslim you must follow the Koran and other writings and listen and obey the voice of the religious leaders. Not doing so would probably make you an apostate which is reason enough to kill you. There may be lesser or greater degrees of obedience to the Koran but not following the teachings is not an option. Why our leaders in Washington insist on bringing 7th century barbarians to the United States, which is primarily a Christian country, is a mystery to me. I would not be adverse to rounding them up and issuing all Muslims a one way ticket back to whichever Muslim hell hole they feel comfortable with. In truth, Islam and Socialism are evil, they have never been allies. In fact, they are enemies. What seems to be completely forgotten is that in WWII, the Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Hitler, going so far as to raise Muslim divisions for the Nazis. Hitler named it the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS "Handschar" (1st Croatian).
Once Abu Dharr and Bilaal had a dispute, but in a moment of anger Abu Dharr said: “O son of a black woman!” So Bilaal complained to the Prophet who said: “O Abu Dharr, did you slander his mother? You are a man in whom there is still some jaahiliyyah (ignorance)!” Abu Dahrr began to cry profusely and asked the Prophet to ask for forgiveness for him. Abu Dahrr left the mosque with tears streaming from his eyes and went to Bilaal. When he saw Bilaal he placed his cheek on the ground and said: “I will not get up until you place your foot over my face. You are the noble and I am the lowly!” Bilaal began to cry: he approached Abu Dharr, stood him up and kissed him on that very cheek. Then they hugged each other and cried together. This sure tells us that we have to teach ourselves to be humble and not to insult our brothers and sisters in Islam… God says:” O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one’s] faith. And whoever does not repent – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” chapter 49 verse 11 Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik (may God be pleased with him), who was the servant of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:“None of you truly believes (in Allah and in His religion) until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself”https://islamicnafahat.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/o-son-of-a-black-woman/
~~~~ "Thus, writing around 650, John of Nikiu, Egypt, said that “Muslims”—the Copt is apparently the first non-Muslim to note that word—were not just “enemies of God” but adherents of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.”[1] The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634—a mere two years after Muhammad’s death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The elderly man, “with much groaning,” responded: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.”[2] Others confirmed that “there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.”[3] Muhammad is first mentioned by name in a Syriac fragment, also written around 634; although only scattered phrases are intelligible, they all revolve around bloodshed: “many villages [in Homs] were ravaged by the killing [of the followers] of Muhammad and many people were slain and [taken] prisoner from Galilee to Beth…” “ome ten thousand” people were slaughtered in “the vicinity of Damascus…”[4] Writing around 640, Thomas the Presbyter mentions Muhammad: “there was a battle [Adjnadyn?] between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled… Some 4,000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there … The Arabs ravaged the whole region”; they even “climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata.” A Coptic homily, also written around the 640's, is apparently the earliest account to associate the invaders with (an albeit hypocritical) piety. It counsels Christians to fast, but not “like the Saracens who are oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying, ‘we both fast and pray.’”[5] Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268850/when-and-why-west-began-demonize-muhammad-raymond-ibrahim It seems that things don't change within the ideology of Islam. Submit or Die. Thus the history of the seventh Century is repeated on a daily basis today. The Muslim Jihadi kills and enslaves the survivors. "The sooner more people in the West understand this—understand the roots of the animosity—the sooner the true nature of the current (or rather ongoing) conflict will become clear".
~~~~ Perhaps you should study history a little more. Yes, war chariots were still in use during the 7th Century in the Middle East, India and China. Although elephants continued to be used as weapons by the Indians too. Remember the Roman/Byzantine era was fading.
In Arabia they used wheels for lifting well water and grinding grains NOT for transportation. Muhammed didn't have any "chariots". Wheels don't work in sand.. LOLOL.. You ever wonder why they used camels since they are such a nasty, tempermental beast.
~~~~ For a person who claims to know a lot about the ME, there may be sand, but on the contrary, a lot of the ME desert is just hard ground not all sand dunes. It's easier to use a camel than a horse. Camels are hardier in the desert and take less water. Did you know that wild camels once roamed the deserts of America?
