Post: #76

Also - the claim that the Taj Mahal was a pure Muslim created temple is not quite waterproof as well:
http://www.krishnapath.org/photographic-...ic-temple/

It seemed to have been a Hindu temple before. The Hagia Sofia is also the biggest mosque I guess.

Post: #77

The case made by the Hare Krishna is not credible. The Taj Mahal was commissioned by a muslim mughal ruler and designed by a muslim architect, and built in a relatively short period. It wasn't a recommissioned building like the Hagia Sofia. It has the hallmarks of islamic architecture: prominent minarets, geometric motifs throughout, prominent calligraphy, lack of human representation, etc.

Post: #78

^^ The blog seems to be exaggerating the fact that the architecture is inspired by vedic temples. It was inspired by tombs of previous Mughals and other Mughal buildings. Ofcourse it took inspiration from everywhere, that's what makes it what it is. Ustad Ahmad Lahauri was the architect. Frankly, the blog could be yet another Hindu agenda.

Taj Mahal is not a temple but a mosque.

Post: #79

(07-03-2017 07:44 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 03:45 PM)911 Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...

When he wasn't out killing hordes of people who disagreed with what he said, that is. Or fucking nine year olds.

Washington Irving, like a lot of stupid Western writers, had fallen victim to what I call Enlightenment Fallacy: that a culture has all the answers so long as its participants are not white. Irving is well understood to have been influenced by Romanticism in all his works, and particularly Mohammed because the guy came from an entirely different culture and was therefore more mysterious. And even then Irving was very "uncomfortable" with Mohammed's later military career. That is, he started to have cognitive dissonance over the entire subject.

Who gives a fuck about how pretty Alhambra is? The architectural plans that Adolf Hitler had for Berlin should he have won World War Two are beautiful. Doesn't make Hitler or his regime any less monstrous. The ability to conceive beauty only makes you human, not good.

So you believe that many western writers were irrationally sympathetic to Islam out of self hatred?

Irving certainly was. He was heartily sick of Spanish politics by the time he started eulogising Islam. You quoted him as a source, not us.

You make it sound like Irving must have been some kind of liberal self-hating American because he had some good things to say about Spanish moorish culture. He was a prominent 19th century American cultural figure and an avid historian who was a respected Franklin-like figure in Europe. From his Wiki page:

Irving, along with James Fenimore Cooper, was among the first American writers to earn acclaim in Europe, and Irving encouraged American authors such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Edgar Allan Poe. Irving was also admired by some European writers, including Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Thomas Campbell, Francis Jeffrey, and Charles Dickens...America's first genuine internationally best-selling author...

As an American, he had a less biased (albeit romanticized) outsider view of the islamic world, because prior to the 20th century, the mideast was outside of the Monroe Doctrine, so he did not have the kind of biases you would see later with people like Bernard Lewis, who was the original American neocon.

Quote:

(07-03-2017 03:45 PM)911 Wrote:  And how was Hitler's regime more monstrous than the Allies', who have incinerated more innocent civilians in two days at Dresden than the Nazis did in 6 years at Auschwitz?

I expect better than tu quoque out of you, especially a tu quoque that also attempts to change the subject.

You proposed Alhambra as some sort of metaphor that Islamic culture is worth keeping: I pointed out even genocidal maniacs can generate beauty, it's no reason to withhold judgment on a civilisation on that basis. Just because Hitler appreciated fine art does not excuse his killing.

As for whether I have a black and white view of Islam: hardly. I'll come back to the subject when I can be arsed, but for the present, I will summarise: Islam on balance given its 1400 year history does not have enough to recommend it as a civilising force or a religion worth tolerating or keeping around, any more than Scientology deserves to be tolerated just because it gives money to charity now and then and keeps Tom Cruise from running for political office.

That Hitler analogy was pretty clumsy, Paracelsus (Goodwin?). Hitler is not a civilization, he is a small, 12-yr long modern political chapter of German civilization. His main downfall was his geopolitical naivety, his abysmally poor war tactical sense and that of his entourage (Goering). Interesting side subject, but irrelevant to the discussion.

You do measure civilizations in part by the quality of their art, their writings and especially their architecture. Buildings like the Alhambra inspire feelings of awe similar to those one might feel when entering great European cathedrals like Reims or Cologne, or Roman works like the Pantheon. The Alhambra wasn't built by goatherders from the desert, it's the work of an advanced civilization, as was the Taj Mahal. those works still stand centuries later as the finest ever built on Spanish or Indian soil.

Scientology is not a civilization, it's a modern predatory cult started by a freemason satanist, Ron Hubbard.

Post: #80

911 - you make the error of following the same logic that Muslims do.

They are the only ones which claim that literally ISLAM created all the goodies.

They don't care if the greatest stated "Muslim" scientists and artists were recently forcibly converted Zoroastrian Persians, Christian Spaniards, Indian Hindus. It all does not matter. Also it does not matter what tribe, race or previous culture existed there. It does not matter to them that their best and most competent soldiers were at times forcibly robbed Balkan Christians.

It is also the gall they have of claiming that everything happened because of the glories of Islam.

In contrast other tribes clearly state that Japan is not great because of Shintoism, Spain did not conquer the world becaues of Christianity, India was not impressive because of Hinduism or that the current high civilization was created by Christianity. It was created by mostly rather secular leaders and scientists. In fact most often religion held back progress, but there were other things that hold back progress tremendously like promoted inbreeding and slavery. Islam has all of it imbued.

And now even if there comes a time of a Swedish Caliphate and some Swedish scientists have to convert, then I am sure that within 10 years the camel-piss-drinkers and legal pedophiles will claim that Islam now made the Swedes reach great scientific heights.

Enough with that. I really wonder why you defend Islam so much? You mention that the Alhambra was not built by goat herders. That is true. The goat herders and caravan bandits conquered the superior civilizations and then they built it.

At least the Romans and Greeks actually built things. The main reason in my opinion why they did not move forward into modern development was their desire to keep slavery. Otherwise they might have had an industrial revolution in the year 400.

And all of it was not because of the Roman religion, but in spite of it. I really wonder what kind of mental concoctions you will go to excuse the most barbaric religion of them all? Satanic - yes - Islam is satanic and always was.

Post: #81

TBH I've yet to read the Koran, I'd be interested in looking at satanic connections within Islam, wahhabism for one is definitely supposed to be satanic in inspiration according to credible unbiased scholars.

Post: #82

(07-04-2017 01:21 PM)911 Wrote:  TBH I've yet to read the Koran, I'd be interested in looking at satanic connections within Islam, wahhabism for one is definitely supposed to be satanic in inspiration according to credible unbiased scholars.

Fucking A - you have not read the Quran and at least some Hadiths? And here you are lecturing us about the glories of Islam?

http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/ - chronological Quran - you would have to sift through the book, but it would not be different, just chaotic, since it was written all across the time-lines.

Here - takes you 1-2 hours - less than the time you spent defending the religion.

But the worst is in the context and the Hadiths, also the biography of Mohammed. That is when the fullness of Islam gets really bad. And actually that is what is necessary according to all 4 Islamic schools. Many important Hadiths were not translated until the 1990s. And no - it does not get better in Arabic.

Post: #83

(07-04-2017 10:57 AM)911 Wrote:  The case made by the Hare Krishna is not credible. The Taj Mahal was commissioned by a muslim mughal ruler and designed by a muslim architect, and built in a relatively short period. It wasn't a recommissioned building like the Hagia Sofia. It has the hallmarks of islamic architecture: prominent minarets, geometric motifs throughout, prominent calligraphy, lack of human representation, etc.

Also brutal lack of regard for human life, if the legend is correct; it is said Shah Jahan had the hands of all the workers who built the thing cut off after completion so no one would be able to build such a wonder again.

That story is popularly discounted, of course. Less discounted is the account that after completion of the mausoleum, Shah Jahan cut the thumb of the chief architect Ustad Isa (though now it is believed that it is Ustad Ahmad Lahauri was the chief architect). It is quite difficult to draw without the thumb and hence it is practically equivalent to having no hands for a architect.

Or perhaps it's a matter of a translation error: Jahan denied the architect permission to work on any other buildings after the Taj Mahal, to which the architect replied "Apne toh mere haath hi kaat diye", the literal translation of which is "you cut my hands, sir"... meaning that by denying him to work anywhere, he took all his ability to work as an architect.

But then I suppose we should be happy this particular Mughal emperor turned to this form of architecture. His forebears, Babar in particular, preferred the architecture of literal towers of Hindu skulls. During one of his slaughters the mass of bodies grew so large that the tent from which Babar watched the killing had to be moved three times.

This is not a legend, I might add; Babar himself proudly records it in his autobiography, Tuzuk-i-Barburi. It was important that every member of his dynasty appear as a killer of infidels, so he destroyed temples and statues of deities wherever he went.

That tradition (as well as the towers of skulls) was carried down right through to Akbar, supposedly the "greatest" Mughal emperor (and who, incidentally, also brought back the old tradition from Omar's time of forcing unbelievers -- Hindus in this case -- to wear a patch at the shoulder identifying them as such. Those Hindus received the name tukriya, or "patcher".

Shah Jahan, meanwhile, who was the penultimate Mughal emperor, ordered every Hindu temple and every Christian church he could find torn down. At one point, under his reign, four thousand unbelievers were taken to Agra and tortured in an attempt to have them convert to Islam. Again, these details are recorded by Jahan's chronicler in the Badshahnama. Generally Jahan demanded that every unbeliever he came across either converted to Islam or was converted to an abject second class status within his realm, if not tortured or murdered. And that's before you get to his son, Aurangzeb, who was a hell of a lot worse.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #84

The practice of human skull pyramids goes back to the Mongols. Babar and other Mughals are islamized Mongols.

Post: #85

(07-10-2017 02:53 PM)911 Wrote:  The practice of human skull pyramids goes back to the Mongols. Babar and other Mughals are islamized Mongols.

Which only proves that taking on Teh Ideal Man's religion didn't really dampen or limit their cultural/genetic/take your pick violence ... unlike Christianity in large degree, or indeed Buddhism or Hinduism in the countries it tended to wind up. Or perhaps we should take away from that observation that violent people gravitate to violent religions?

As said: Islam is not worth the bloodshed and slavery that come prepackaged with the latte Sufism claimed to lie somewhere buried inside it.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #86

Relevant video. Posted it also in migrant invasion thread.

Post: #87

(07-04-2017 10:57 AM)911 Wrote:  The case made by the Hare Krishna is not credible. The Taj Mahal was commissioned by a muslim mughal ruler and designed by a muslim architect, and built in a relatively short period. It wasn't a recommissioned building like the Hagia Sofia. It has the hallmarks of islamic architecture: prominent minarets, geometric motifs throughout, prominent calligraphy, lack of human representation, etc.

That seemed flaky to me too - I was there recently and the idea that a government 80% Hindu would not correct an appropriation by the Muslims or at least make note of it seems highly unlikely. Besides there are Islamic references (and plenty of writing) all over that place - none of which looks like it was recently added, as that Krishna blog page suggests. If eventually evidence causes an official revision as some suggest could happen, that's another story.

As to your earlier reference to the Dresden bombing, yes it was a terrible thing - perhaps even an unpunished war crime. It was not however, even close in terms of raw numbers to those killed and cremated at Auschwitz. We're talking 25k civilians bombed compared to approximately 1.1 million killed at Auschwitz, depending upon who you listen to.

Post: #88

Your Atlantic article linked says:

"An estimated 25,000 people were killed in the bombings and the firestorm that raged afterward. More than 75,000 dwellings were destroyed,"

So their assumption implies 1 person was killed for every 3 dwellings destroyed, which is a foockin joke, especially when you know how most of these buildings were destroyed, through a firestorm. People in building basements suffocated to death, in a manner similar to how fuel air expolsives work.

A dense, compact city with 1 million people was completely destroyed and turned into an outdoor oven, or something actually much, much hotter than your average oven, because temperatures were so high that stone buildings collapsed as the sandstone crumbled with temperatures reaching 700C-800C. Yet they estimate that 97.5% (25,000) survived? this estimate is really offensive to any objective person who has studied this event.

As to the Auschwitz, you might want to revisit the thread about that. You really shouldn't limit yourself the official narrative on that topic.

Post: #89

Well, I know the Atlantic wasn't the one who re-visited the numbers, originally. Dresden was bad but numerically it was no Auchwitz - not taking sides, just simple facts. And yes, I've seen all the "unofficial" narratives on the topic of Auschwitz, some of which is quite revealing, but doing my best not to turn this site into Stormfront.

Post: #90

I was thinking of where to share this and I feel like this might be a good place.

I am not a fan of Islam as an ideology AT ALL. On the other hand I can appreciate aesthetics and beauty when I see it such as in Islamic music, art or architecture.

This song below has lyrics in 3 different languages, Arabic, Hindi and Urdu ( turn on the CC for English translation).

Everything from the presentation to the lyrics were created masterfully and if you had taken away some of the blatant Islamic references, it could very well have been a Christian song.

Yes, the name itself is off putting haha ( Allahu Akbar), but give it a listen, hope you enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJaO4JdFWB8

Post: #91

(08-13-2017 04:47 PM)sonoran_ Wrote:  I was thinking of where to share this and I feel like this might be a good place.

I am not a fan of Islam as an ideology AT ALL. On the other hand I can appreciate aesthetics and beauty when I see it such as in Islamic music, art or architecture.

This song below has lyrics in 3 different languages, Arabic, Hindi and Urdu ( turn on the CC for English translation).

Everything from the presentation to the lyrics were created masterfully and if you had taken away some of the blatant Islamic references, it could very well have been a Christian song.

Yes, the name itself is off putting haha ( Allahu Akbar), but give it a listen, hope you enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJaO4JdFWB8

Beauty for beauty's sake:











There are other beautiful rituals and songs that you can have:



Allahu Akbar = Hail Satan = Heil Hitler

You simply cannot separate an ideology that is more evil than almost anything out there - one in addition that promotes inbreeding and keeps humanity in eternal medieval darkness - you cannot promote that shit as anything beautiful. Even if you have a song coming out of it.

I'll give Rumi and some highly spiritual Sufis a pass - all of them should be killed anyway according to Islam and many have. They were saints born like St. Francis into a Satanic death cult. The religion itself was a cult of war for the benefit of a medieval robber-baron warlord. It was shit in terms of building a higher civilization - always been that way and if let run loose, then it will kick humanity back to eternally inbred medieval ages - beautiful Allahu Akbar songs included.

Post: #92

St. Francis was born into a Satanic death cult?

Post: #93

(08-14-2017 11:25 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  St. Francis was born into a Satanic death cult?

Rumi was born into a Satanic death cult - or his tribe got recently forcibly converted. I consider Rumi on the level of St. Francis. Though Christianity is much better of course. Islam also would be if Rumi was the founder instead of a pedophile warlord.

Post: #94

Dude, no argument there. Im a conservative Christian myself and I believe that the world would be a lot different without the invention of Islam.

However like I said, I could literally change only about 20-30 words in that song and make it into a Christian song.