Bounce

The definition of terrorism seems to have changed over the last 13 years. The terrorist label only seems to be used if the perpetrator is Muslim. Even when the act is clearly a grotesque murder rather than a terrorist attack, such as in the case of Lee Rigby. During the Norway attacks the media were reporting it as a twin terror attack when they thought Muslims were responsible. As soon as they found out otherwise the headline changed to mass shooting.

No he didn't. The Blair regime ordered the bombing and invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussain was about to launch WMD into other nations, which was a lie. After this justification was proven false the justification changed to regime change. Regime change is not a legal justification for attacking any sovereign country. [/color] The only madmen killing people in Iraq in 2003 were Bush and his side kick Blair. See my answer above for why it was an illegal war. ---------- Post added 30-11-2014 at 12:04 ---------- [/color] The massacre at Halabja took place in 1988 during the Iran Iraq war when the American government were supporting Saddam Hussain. Legal wars are not fought based on speculation but on evidence of a clear and present threat. In 2003 Saddam Hussain was not attacking any other country. There was no legal premise for saying he could possibly have been a threat and therefore war is justified. Any nation could possibly be a threat to another nation but that is no justification for war. Israel is also a threat to its neighbours. Every time Israel commits massacres in Palestine or Lebanon or threatens other neighbouring countries do the American or British governments go to war against Israel? No! on the contrary the American government supply Israel with 3 billion a year in military aid making them indirectly responsible for the massacres Israel commits against its neighbours. ---------- Post added 30-11-2014 at 19:30 ---------- Statement.........................................

you mean the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Iraqi civilians.

which nationality is that then?

It seems that when the perpetrators are of Muslim background the first thing to be highlighted by the media is their ancestral nationality. You don't often here the media referring to white British perpetraitors as English men or even British Afro Carribean perpetraitors as Jamaicans. If these perpetraitors were of a different nationality it would be understandable to describe them as such. The fact is that the vast majority of them are British men.

I'm not interested in responding to your off topic nonsense. Either respond properly to post 372 or leave. You started this with your lies and now you are running away. What utter nonsense! The British went to India for imperialist economic reasons. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. In fact the Mughal Empire was in demise when the British arrived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire Referencing wikipedia is banned in Universities because it is not a credible source but seeing as you insist on using it, I will too. It's about time you read up on India's history properly instead of inventing lies about the reasons why Britain went to India! There's also a lot of non Muslim conquering and seizing of other lands, including Afghanistan but you only want to talk about Muslims? I was reading through the wikipedia links you provided and there is nothing in any of them to suggest that the British went to India to give the country back to the Hindus. I'm going to quote some passages from one of your wikipedia links which reinforces what I've been saying all along. “Over the centuries, there has been significant integration of Hindu and Muslim cultures across India and the Muslims have played a prominent role in India's economic rise and cultural influence.” “Other famous Muslims who fought for independence against the British rule: Abul Kalam Azad, Mehmud Hasan of Darul Uloom Deoband who was implicated in the famous Silk Letter Conspiracy to overthrow the British through an armed struggle, Husain Ahmed Madani, former Shaikhul Hadith of Darul Uloom Deoband, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Hakeem Ajmal Khan,Hasrat Mohani, Syed Mahmud, Professor Maulavi Barkatullah, Zakir Husain, Saifuddin Kichlu, Vakkom Abdul Khadir, Manzoor Abdul Wahab, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Hakeem Nusrat Husain, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai, Colonel Shahnawaz, M.A.Ansari, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Ansar Harwani, Tak Sherwani, Nawab Viqarul Mulk, Nawab Mohsinul Mulk, Mustsafa Husain, VM Ubaidullah, SR Rahim, Badaruddin Taiyabji, and Moulvi Abdul Hamid. Until 1920, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a member of the Indian National Congress and was part of the independence struggle. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, poet and philosopher, was a strong proponent of Hindu–Muslim unity and an undivdided India perhaps until 1930.Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was also active in the Indian National Congress in Bengal during his early political career. Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali struggled for the emancipation of the Muslims in the overall Indian context, and struggled for independence alongsideMahatma Gandhi and Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal. Until the 1930s, the Muslims of India broadly conducted their politics alongside their countrymen, in the overall context of an undivided India.” “Interestingly, in three genetic studies representing the whole of South Asian Muslims, it was found that the Muslim population was overwhelmingly similar to the local non-Muslims associated with minor but still detectable levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia, rather than directly from the Arabian peninsula.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Partition_of_India This all started when you made two nonsense claims. Nonsense claim 1 that the British went to India to fight Muslim invaders and return the country to the Hindus. Nonsense claim 2 that the British never invaded Pakistan. “The British Raj extended over almost all present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with exceptions such as Goa and Pondicherry.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj Both your claims have been proved one hundred percent false. My original point still stands. White British people committed the crime of all crimes in modern day Pakistan long before any Pakistani committed a crime in Britain. Those of Pakistani and Azad Kashmiri origin who live in Britain do so as citizens of this country. Most contribute positively to British society but there will undoubtedly be a minority criminal element in every ethnicity, religion or nationality.

see post 372 and then see lines pathetic response to it. At the end of post 372 I brought it back on topic. Lines again took it off topic with his nonsense comments. ---------- Post added 16-11-2014 at 22:40 ---------- Are you going to respond to post 372 or not. If not then I suggest you leave now before you embarrass yourself even more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodhaa_Akbar Another lie! Some Rajputs not 'all Hindus' protested the movie while at the same time the movie became a super hit in India. Mughal King Akbar is known as Akbar The Great in India.

Which quote doesn't have a reference? The problem with you is you can't back up your lies. Typical uneducated Islamophobic nonsense response that I expected from someone of your caliber. That's it run away you've lost this one kid. Exposed as the liar you are go and crawl back under your rock,

What utter nonsense! The British went to India for imperialist economic reasons. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. In fact the Mughal Empire was in demise when the British arrived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire Referencing wikipedia is banned in Universities because it is not a credible source but seeing as you insist on using it, I will too. It's about time you read up on India's history properly instead of inventing lies about the reasons why Britain went to India! There's also a lot of non Muslim conquering and seizing of other lands, including Afghanistan but you only want to talk about Muslims? I was reading through the wikipedia links you provided and there is nothing in any of them to suggest that the British went to India to give the country back to the Hindus. I'm going to quote some passages from one of your wikipedia links which reinforces what I've been saying all along. “Over the centuries, there has been significant integration of Hindu and Muslim cultures across India and the Muslims have played a prominent role in India's economic rise and cultural influence.” “Other famous Muslims who fought for independence against the British rule: Abul Kalam Azad, Mehmud Hasan of Darul Uloom Deoband who was implicated in the famous Silk Letter Conspiracy to overthrow the British through an armed struggle, Husain Ahmed Madani, former Shaikhul Hadith of Darul Uloom Deoband, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Hakeem Ajmal Khan,Hasrat Mohani, Syed Mahmud, Professor Maulavi Barkatullah, Zakir Husain, Saifuddin Kichlu, Vakkom Abdul Khadir, Manzoor Abdul Wahab, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Hakeem Nusrat Husain, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai, Colonel Shahnawaz, M.A.Ansari, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Ansar Harwani, Tak Sherwani, Nawab Viqarul Mulk, Nawab Mohsinul Mulk, Mustsafa Husain, VM Ubaidullah, SR Rahim, Badaruddin Taiyabji, and Moulvi Abdul Hamid. Until 1920, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a member of the Indian National Congress and was part of the independence struggle. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, poet and philosopher, was a strong proponent of Hindu–Muslim unity and an undivdided India perhaps until 1930.Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was also active in the Indian National Congress in Bengal during his early political career. Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali struggled for the emancipation of the Muslims in the overall Indian context, and struggled for independence alongsideMahatma Gandhi and Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal. Until the 1930s, the Muslims of India broadly conducted their politics alongside their countrymen, in the overall context of an undivided India.” “Interestingly, in three genetic studies representing the whole of South Asian Muslims, it was found that the Muslim population was overwhelmingly similar to the local non-Muslims associated with minor but still detectable levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia, rather than directly from the Arabian peninsula.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Partition_of_India This all started when you made two nonsense claims. Nonsense claim 1 that the British went to India to fight Muslim invaders and return the country to the Hindus. Nonsense claim 2 that the British never invaded Pakistan. “The British Raj extended over almost all present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with exceptions such as Goa and Pondicherry.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj Both your claims have been proved one hundred percent false. My original point still stands. White British people committed the crime of all crimes in modern day Pakistan long before any Pakistani committed a crime in Britain. Those of Pakistani and Azad Kashmiri origin who live in Britain do so as citizens of this country. Most contribute positively to British society but there will undoubtedly be a minority criminal element in every ethnicity, religion or nationality.

You have failed to provide a quote with a link or reference. The paragraph you've quoted could be from anywhere and is therefore meaningless! Post 273 is the first time you typed to me and immediately you brought Islam into it. Before that I was not even engaged in discussion with you. Do you mean your blinkered view of history in which the British Empire went to India to defend against Islam and North Africa counts as East Africa Laughable how you are admitting defeat in your own posts and then trying to attribute it to me. That made a lot of sense. Another one of your nonsensical sentences lol Your responses about Islam in Africa are waffle Ignoring the main point that you claimed Muslim countries were all invaded at some point in history by Muslim armies. You initially stated that you didn't know and would ask your mates and get back to me lol I'm also not interested in talking to your imaginary friends. The fact is you can't debate which is why you have lost this one. So you post a random paragraph and expect me and others to scroll up for a link instead of posting it yourself? Again your sentence makes no sense lol Yes I'm still reading your 'gramma'. Lines means you are only capable of one line responses during debates. you started of demonising Islam which has already been proven see post 273. My point about the British Empire was in response to a claim that whites don't commit crime in Pakistan. You clearly have problems constructing coherent sentences which has been demonstrated to you many times. No, the Muslims in India at the time of the British Invasion were Indian Muslims and not an occupying army! They became Pakistani after the division by the British. So what makes you so sure Darwin was right when he himself admitted he could be wrong. Also explain how Evolution Theory disproves the existence of a creator? It's Skinz not sinz and I don't know the poster so not sure why you keep going on about him in every post? Have you got some weird obsession with him? Why do you think I'm still replying to your rubbish? I like showing you up for the idiot you are. Yes I have noticed that I've phased you one iota lol

What is here? Provide a link or reference along with the quote. You do As proved numerous times Jodha Akbar was a super hit in India. This far outweighs any small protests. The protests were by Rajputs who can be Hindu or Muslim specifically related to the Rajput character of Jodha. Nonsense! You brought up Islam and in the process of shooting down your arguments I brought up Christianity which you feel the need to defend. Proving that you're Islamophobic. You keep attempting to demonise Islam and Islamic history. The example of Spain was one of many examples given in response to this. Britain invaded the region now known as Pakistan and divided it up. You are in denial about historical facts! Of course Muslim armies went to North Africa. I asked you which Muslim army went to East Africa and you replied with North Africa. Then claimed they went to North Africa through East Africa which is nonsense again. A lot of very nasty things are happening in Africa today. Many of these things are committed by non Muslims but you only like to bring it up when Muslims are involved. which destroys your original argument completely, that Muslim countries were non Muslim before being invaded. This imaginary Indonesian mates rubbish is your annoyance at losing the debate. Tell these imaginary mates to join the discussion seeing as they're reading it but they can't because they don't exist. You are the one who diverted from the original subject scroll up to find out. one liners are all you are capable of I guess that's why you call yourself lines I'm surprised you can even spell the word education but clearly you have no idea what it means. Muslim armies invaded other lands I'm not denying it and never have. The fact is though that you only like to talk about Islamic history in an attempt to demonise Muslims. Israel and India have a bloody present in which Muslims are the victims but you won't talk about that will you. You won't talk about the just rule of Muslims in Spain India or Jersulam Al Qurtz. You're constantly focused on anything negative you can attribute to Muslims while trying to defend the bloody history of others. When the British invaded India they were the invading army and the region of Pakistan was inhabited by native Indian Muslims who then became Pakistani. the Big Bang, the embryonic cycle, the orbit of the planets, the moons light being reflected light, the sweet and salty barrier of the seas are some of many Scientific facts mentioned in the Quran. So you think the universe and all planets and life within is not proof that a greater power exists. How did it come into being then? Who is sinz? Sinz Your response to everything is bum chum. You are truly an idiot of the highest degree.

Don't try and dodge your way out of this. Quote me where it mentions Hindus or Muslims even once! Anything of the sort not such! Another attempt to dodge the point. Where is your counter argument? Oh that's right, as usual you don't have one do you. Don't try twisting this into something it's not just because you have no answer to my point. My point is that Indians make films glorifying Muslim rule which become super hits in India. No such film about British rule. The films made about British rule portray the British exactly how you've described Muslims above. Your comments describe British rule more than they do Muslim rule. Again an attempt to dodge the main point. The point that Christianity and the British Empire have a very bloody history. So why is it Islam you like to focus on? I've never claimed Muslims did not invade Spain. You are trying to gloss over the main point regarding the difference in behaviour between the Muslims and Christians. The Muslims allowing the Christians and Jews to live peacefully in the land and the Christians massacring every Muslim and Jew in sight. It wasn't out of no where. I gave you a long list of evidence complete with quotes from famous historians. All of which you avoided with stupid one line responses. The armies that went to North Africa did not come from East Africa. The Muslims who went to East Africa were traders. What is going on in Nigeria is civil unrest based on religious differences namely between the North and South of the country. Many crimes have been committed against Muslim civilians as well. So why do you want to exclusively focus on Boko Haram? Not for example the video footage of the brutal beheadings of Muslims who are then thrown into mass graves by perpetrators dressed in Nigerian military uniforms. So you admit it the country with the largest Muslim population in the world was never invaded by a Muslim army. Your imaginary mates didn't say that you are saying it out of annoyance at losing the debate. Another stupid one line response. 14 million Coptic Christians in the Middle East today are living proof that Islam was not spread by the sword. Hate crimes do take place in Pakistan but they do in Britain as well. What's your point? In practically every post. Defending genocide in Spain. Trying to justify the Crusades. You haven't stopped trying to excuse and glorify the bloody history of Christianity. It started when you made the absurd claim that Pakistan was never invaded by Britain. You then went straight onto making absurd claims about Islamic history. Evolution theory is not proof it's a theory. Even Darwin himself admitted he could be wrong. Some aspects of this theory help us to understand life on Earth better but it doesn't disprove the existence of a creator. It only disproves the Christian theory that the earth was created around 4000 years ago in 6 days and God rested on the seventh. Have you considered you might be deluded. If you think evolution theory disproves the existence of God then you clearly are. The question you should be asking yourself is how old are you. Your constant use of bum chums and silly one line responses followed by LOL shows your level of maturity. I have scroll up. It's not really my job to correct your mistakes. Get tuition. What's your obsession with bum chum. You're on a discussion forum but your posts clearly demonstrate that you belong in the school playground.

I have read it and it doesn't mention Hindus or Muslims once! It's clear who is twisting to their agenda. It proves the film was very popular among Indian society. King Akbar is referred to as Akbar The Great in India. No such respect for Queen Victoria or British rule. No such films made by India glorifying British rule in fact films made about British rule show Britain as an illegal occupier. How can Islam invade lands it's a religion? The British invading India had nothing to do with any previous invasion. The British came to do business via the East India company and then tried to take the country over for themselves. India celebrates independence from Britain every year. How can Islam massacre many it's a religion. The Muslims ruled Spain for approximately 800 years allowing both Christians and Jews to live peacefully in the land. The Christian armies massacred every non Christian in sight until no non Christians were left in Spain. I specifically asked you which Muslim army went to East Africa which has a large Muslim population. You couldn't do it so you started posting links about North Africa which is a totally different region. I also told you that no Muslim army went to Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population in the world and you came up with some rubbish about asking your imaginary Indonesian mates. Your response to 14 million Coptics in the Middle East was a story about a hate crime against a Christian couple in Pakistan. For someone who's not a Christian you seem to take a keen interest in glorifying Christianity and demonising Islam. I have no problem at all with Christians. My points about Christian history are in response to your constantly negative comments about Islamic history. On the other hand you seem to want to defend and glorify the bloody history of Christianity which makes it clear that your agenda is in fact Islamophobic. What's your proof? Before you say you haven't seen God you have seen the earth haven't you. The birds in flight, the tiniest insects with their on eyes and brain. Beings of advanced intelligence like the human when scientists struggle to create a robot. The Elephant, the giraffes, bears, Tigers and the list goes on. The fruits and vegetables of distinctive colours tastes and smells in their own special rappings ready to eat. So if a creator doesn't exist to create all this where did it come from? For someone who doesn't believe in God you are again trying to defend Christian beliefs. Claim what you like I have no care or concern for the claims of an imbecile Still struggling with your sentences I also note you conveniently ignore most of my points with nonsensical one liners because you are not capable of debating. Just because you claim something doesn't make it true.

Yes most are dossers and that's why companies look abroad for unskilled labour. If it didn't benefit companies to do so they wouldn't waste their time recruiting from abroad. The other reason is that a lot of British people don't want to do the unskilled factory type jobs. Increasingly factory work is done in Asia where the staff work longer and harder for a fraction of the cost. I know politicians keep banging on about living in a global economy but that's one thing they're right about. If all immigration stopped tomorrow the companies would move their premises abroad. Most restaurants, coffee shops and fast food outlets would also close down,

Just look at the state of the unemployed in this country though. Most are dossers apart from those unable to work due to ill health. Companies like foreign workers because they work hard, don't complain and get on with what they're paid to do. Most unemployed young British people have a lousy attitude towards work and that's the problem. ---------- Post added 14-11-2014 at 19:24 ---------- The young people back then probably had a different attitude towards work.

My point is this, in the UK, Pakistani people are stereotyped. These stereotypes are either based on experiences with so called 'Pakistanis' or media coverage of a group of so called 'Pakistanis'.What the media doesn't tell you is that the majority of British Pakistanis are not Pakistani. Pakistan is made up of four provinces Panjab, Sindhi, Bolochistan and Khyber Pakhtun Khwa. In most UK towns and cities Azad Kashmiris make up the majority of the group known as 'Pakistanis'. Azad Kashmir is not one of the four provinces of Pakistan it's under Pakistani administration. Therefore Pakistani people will usually say Pakistan and Azad Kashmir when including Azad Kashmir with Pakistan. To say Kashmiris are Pakistani is a bit like calling the Scottish the English. Scotland is part of Britain but not a part of England. Similarly Azad Kashmir is part of the region of Pakistan but is not a part of mainland Pakistan.

Where have you met Pakistanis. I noticed you made reference to Sheffield in an earlier comment. Sheffield doesn't have that many Pakistani nationals living in the city. The people you are referring to are mostly British nationals mainly of Kashmiri ethnicity from a handful of villages in the south of the territory. Hardly a true representation of Pakistani people. If you want to get an idea of what real Pakistani people are like I suggest you visit Pakistan or at least a city like London which has a more representative Pakistani population. ---------- Post added 13-11-2014 at 19:40 ---------- Never heard or come across any such issues when flying into Dubai. I'm confused. You said he wasn't denied entry because of Ibuprofen but it was his daily medication so he had to return to the UK. Why didn't he just get a letter from his Doctor if it was that important or just buy some more from the chemist after leaving the airport. Why was he refused entry?

Where does it say Hindus were protesting the film because it glorified King Akbar? A very accurate description of yourself. Are you denying the film was a super hit in India grossing Rs 79.02 Crores. Son! Talking about yourself again! Britain invaded pre partition India including the region now known as Pakistan! They stayed until they'd completed the division and left Kashmir for both to fight over. Ignoring the main point that under Islamic rule Muslims Jews and Christians lived in peace. The Christians massacred every non Christian in Spain. This really shows your ignorance. Coptics are Arab not Pakistani Are you denying that eighty percent of Indians are Non Muslims. Resorting to lies instead of evidence to support your nonsense. Nothing new there then. Do you know the difference between East Africa and Africa as a whole. Did you study Geography at school? You can ask your imaginary Indonesian mates whatever you like. No Muslim armies went to Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population in the world. No it's not. Muslims believe Jesus was a Prophet of God not the son of God. Muslims worship Allah (swt) not Jesus (pbuh). Most modern day Christians worship Jesus even though Jesus said in the Bible worship the father for the father is greater than I. Because God is not a human being and doesn't require family. Christians say Jesus is God and the son of God. God is uncreated by definition therefore the question who created God is nonsensical. As soon as you ask who created God you are no longer talking about God. Come of it kid you have no Muslim friends. Coming from someone who has difficulty constructing sentences.

You clearly can't read then. It was protested on one front by some Rajouts. Namely the marriage of Jodhaa to Akbar. Rajputs can be Hindu or Muslim. Nothing mentioned about Hindus protesting the film because it glorified Akbar The Great. The fact that the film was a Super hit in India grossing Rs 79.02 Crores is evidence enough that it was loved by all sections of Indian society. Your world view is based on ignorance and assumptions about Muslims and other cultures you know nothing about. You have no evidence for anything you say. You can barely construct a coherent sentence. A few others on here believe quantitative evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists. When people want to lie they often throw percentages and figures around to deceive people. This is especially common among politicians. Quantitative evidence can be used and twisted to suit any kind of agenda. A better form of evidence is Qualitative evidence which won't be used by you or any other racist ranter on here because you have no interaction with the people you're ranting about. You are the one in denial. Denying the historical fact that Britain invaded and occupied Pakistan. The historian De Lacy O'Leary writes on page 8 of his book Islam at the cross road "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated. " Muslims ruled Spain for approximately 800 years. During this time they never used the sword to forcibly convert Christians and Jews to Islam. Later the Christian armies arrived and wiped out every single Muslim. The Jews fled to Turkey for protection and were taken in and protected by the Muslims. At the end of the genocide not a single non Christian was left in Spain. There are 14 million Arab Coptic Christians. This means they've been Christians for generations. If Muslims had forcibly converted all Arabs to Islam at the point of the sword there wouldn't be a single Arab Coptic left let alone 14 million. Muslims ruled India for a thousand years. If they wanted to they could have forcibly converted or killed all Hindus. Eighty percent of India's population is Hindu. This Eighty percent are living proof that Islam was not forcibly imposed on the people of India. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia? The East coast of Africa has a large Muslim population. Which Muslim army went to East Africa? Thomas Carlyle the famous historian writes about this misconception of Islam being spread by the sword in his book Heroes and Hero Worship "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one mans head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man of the whole world alone believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole a thing will propagate itself as it can." There is no compulsion in religion "Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error". (Quran 2:256) Islam spread because the idea made sense. The ideas in Christianity make no sense. Why would the all powerful creator of the universe have a son? How can he be the son of God and God as well? Not to mention the fact that Jesus never said in the Bible that he is God nor to worship him. So when Islam came with true message and correct message regarding Jesus that he was a messenger of God people accepted it. Indeed which is why you're so ignorant about the religion.

Right so it's okay for you to post from wiki but not anyone else? I forgot to post the link so thanks for that. The protests weren't by all Hindus against the positive portrayal of a Muslim ruler. The protests were cast based and not Hindu based. Rajputs can be Hindu and Muslim. I'm Rajput myself. The film was declared a Super hit in India. Eighty percent of Indians are Hindu. So yes it was loved by all despite protests by a minority of people over cast issues. Yes because you've lost the argument so now you've resorted to running away while using the terrorist card. I'm not one sided I can admire and recognise the good in Britain and British society. Can't say the same about you and others on here in regards to Muslims. If you and others are going to spout of rubbish about Pakistani men, Muslims blah blah blah you will get the response you deserve. I have no problem with decent white people. I have plenty of white friends and even a few white family members. I doubt you know a single Muslim. ---------- Post added 07-11-2014 at 21:52 ---------- They're not Pakistani men that's why. They are British men mainly of Kashmiri ethnicity. ---------- Post added 07-11-2014 at 21:56 ---------- This all started because Savannah claimed White British people have never committed any crimes in Pakistan. They only invaded and illegally occupied the country during the British Raj. This eventually lead onto the Crusades.

Who are you trying to fool? It might not have been called Pakistan before the British divided up the region but it was invaded by the British. no? Then what are you doing on this thread? I was asking you that question. You seem to have difficulty constructing coherent sentences. The people of Syria and Iraq were Muslim not British or French so what were the British and French doing there dividing up the country? The puppet sectarian regime America and Britain left in power after the most recent Iraq invasion caused the current situation in Iraq. No evidence at all that the rebels would be attacking Britain. Britain has been supporting the rebels since the conflict began. ISIS is a group of Syrians and foreigners Sorry you've lost me, nothing in that paragraph made any sense. Clearly you have issues typing sentences. Jodhaa Akbar is an Indian epic historical drama film released on 15 February 2008.[3] It is directed and produced by Ashutosh Gowariker, the director of the Academy Award-nominated Lagaan (2001). It stars Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai and Sonu Sood in the lead roles. Extensive research went into the making of this film. The shooting for the film started at Karjat.[4] This movie was also dubbed in Tamil & Telugu languages. The film centres around the romance between the Muslim Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great, played by Hrithik Roshan, and the Hindu Rajput Princess Jodhabai who becomes his wife, played by Aishwarya Rai. The music is composed by acclaimed composer A. R. Rahman. The soundtrack of the movie was released on 19 January 2008.[5] The film has won the Audience Award for Best Foreign Language Film at the São Paulo International Film Festival,[6] two awards at the Golden Minbar International Film Festival,[7] seven Star Screen Awards and five Filmfare Awards, in addition to two nominations at the 3rd Asian Film Awards Jodhaa Akbar collected Rs 79.02 crores in India and was declared a Super hit by Box Office India.[20] In overseas, it grossed $7,550,000 (Rs 49.92 crores) and was declared a blockbuster. The film grossed $2,100,000 in UK, $3,450,000 in North America, $960,000 in UAE, $450,000 in Australia and $590,000 in rest of the world.[21] The film ended with a worldwide lifetime gross of ₹132.42 crores ($28,370,000).[22] Any such movies made about British rule? No! All British rule movies made by India show the British occupiers in a very bad light.

Jesus never called himself a Christian. He never called himself the son of God or told people to worship him in the Bible but that hasn't stopped you has it.

Those who believe in and submit their will to God are called Muslims. He was a Jew as well just as Moses was a Muslim as well. Christianity Judaism and Islam are the same religion. The problem arose when the Jews rejected Jesus and then the Christians raised his status to that of the son of God and God combined.

Which Muslim invaders? What are you talking about? Utter Nonsense! So what are you trying to prove here? That British society is racist towards Asian taxi drivers? We know that, you and others here are part of the problem. So you live in Truro? Do you consider yourself Cornish? I know the city well enough to know that white taxi drives are a small minority there. Well I'll be.......... Britain went to India via the East India Company to do business then illegally invaded and occupied the country. You believe it was to stop the advance of Muslim invaders lol. No of course you're not in denial. Yes I know Jesus was a Muslim. Odd then that Britain repeatedly sent Crusades to the Middle East to kill in the name of Christianity.