generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Off Topic
Home Search
 

Re: @Zacmaq

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 10:52 AM
Debate time.
Let's go into why the Crusades were created in order to combat Islam and why Islam is false, later on:

The Crusade
The Story of how Christians were ‘mean’ to innocent, peaceful Muslims.
Sourced and written by: PyrrhusII

Have YOU heard the story about the Crusades? You know, the one about how medieval Europe’s greedy kings and intolerant Popes launched bloody wars of conquest on the peaceful and enlightened Muslims? Of course you have. Today’s media, movies¸ and academic elites – always looking for ways to bash the Church – never tire telling of it. Even many Catholics would prefer to sweep under the rug what they assume to be a dark and embarrassing period of our history. There’s only one problem with this story, of course….. It’s false.

In 2001, former president Bill Clinton delivered a speech at Georgetown University in which he discussed the West’s response to recent terrorist attacks of September 11. The speech contained a short, but however significant reference to the crusades.


Mr. Clinton observed that “When the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem [in 1099], they… Proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount.”
He cited the “contemporaneous descriptions of the event” as describing ‘soldiers walking on the Temple Mount… With blood running up to their knees.”
This story, Mr. Clinton said empathetically, was “Still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.”

This view of the crusades is not unusual. It pervades textbooks as well as popular literature. One otherwise generally reliable Western Civilization textbook claims that “The Crusades fused three characteristic medieval impulses: [1] Piety, [2] Pugnacity, and [3] Greed.” (1) The film Kingdom Of Heaven, (2005) depicts crusaders as boorish bigots, the best of whom were torn between remorse for their excesses and lust to continue them.

Even the historical supplements for role-playing games – drawing on supposedly more reliable sources – contain statements such as (1)“The soldiers of the First Crusade appeared basically without warning, storming into the Holy Land with avowed – literally -- task of slaughtering unbelievers.”; (2) “The Crusades were an early sort of imperialism.”; and (3) “Confrontation with Islam gave birth to a period of religious fanaticism that spawned the terrible Inquisition and the religious wars that ravaged Europe during the Elizabethan Era.” – (4) The most famous semi-popular historian of the crusades, Sir Steven Runciman, ended his three volumes of magnificent prose with the judgment that the crusades were “Nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost.” (5)


The verdict seems unanimous. From presidential speeches to role-playing games, the crusades are depicted as a deplorably violent episode in which thuggish Westerners trundled off, unprovoked, to murder and pillage peace-loving, sophisticated Muslims, laying down patterns of outrageous oppression that would be repeated throughout subsequent history. In many corners of the Western world today, this view is too commonplace and apparently obvious even to be challenged.

But unanimity is not a guarantee of accuracy. What everyone “knows” about the crusades many not, in fact, be true. From many popular notions about the crusades, let us pick four and see if they bear close examination.



Myth #1:


The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth, and even a cursory chronological view makes that clear. In A.D. 632, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica were all Christian territories. Inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was still fully functional in the Eastern Mediterranean, Orthodox Christianity was the official, and overwhelmingly majority, religion. Outside those boundaries were other large Christian communities – not necessarily Orthodox and Catholic, but still Christian. Most of the Christian population of Persia, for example was Nestorian. Certainly there were many Christian communities in Arabia.


Counter-examples via sourced proof:

By A.D. 732, a century later, Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most Asia Minor, and southern France. Italy and her associated islands were under threat, and the islands would come under Muslim rule in the next century. The Christian communities of Arabia were entirely destroyed in or shortly after A.D. 633, when Jews and Christians alike were expelled from the Peninsula. (6) Those in Persia were under severe pressure, Two-thirds of the formerly Roman Christian world was now ruled by Muslims.


What had happened?


Most people actually know the answer, if pressed – though for some reason they do not usually connect the answer with the crusades. The answer is the rise of Islam.

Every one of the listed regions was taken, within the space of a hundred years, from Christian control by violence, in the course of military campaigns deliberately designed to expand Muslim territory of Islam’s neighbors. Nor did this conclude Islam’s program of conquest. The attacks continued, punctuated from time to time by Christian attempts to push back. Charlemagne blocked the Muslim advance in the far Western Europe in about A.D. 800, but Islamic forces simply shifted their focus and began to island-hop across from North Africa toward Italy and the French coast, attacking the Italian mainland by A.D. 837.

Muslim pirate bases were established along the coast of Northern Italy and Southern France, from which attacks on the deep inland were launched. Desperate to protect victimized Christians, Popes became involved in the tenth and early eleventh centuries in directing the defense of the territory around them.

The surviving central secular authority in the Christian world at this time was East Rome, or the Byzantine Empire. Having lost so much territory in the seventh and eighth centuries to sudden amputation by the Muslims, the Byzantines took a long time to gain the strength to fight back. By the mid-ninth century, they mounted a counterattack on Egypt, the first time since A.D. 645 that they had dared to come so far South. Between the 940’s and the 970’s, the Byzantines made great progress in recovering lost territories.
Emperor John Tzimiskes retook much of Syria and part of Palestine, getting as far as Nazareth, but his armies became overextended and he had to end his campaigns by A.D. 975 without managing to retake Jerusalem itself. Sharp Muslim counterattacks followed, and the Byzantines barely managed to retain Aleppo and Antioch.

The struggle continued unabated into the eleventh century. In A.D. 1009, a mentally deranged Muslim ruler destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and mounted major persecutions of Christians and Jews. He was soon deposed and by A.D. 1038 the Byzantines had negotiated the right to try to rebuild the structure, but other events were also making life difficult for Christians in the area, especially displacement of Arab Muslim rulers by Seljuk Turks. Who from A.D. on began to take control in the Middle East.

This destabilized the territory and introduced new rulers (the Turks) who were not familiar even with patchwork modus vivendi that had existed between most Arab Muslim rulers and their Christian subjects. Pilgrimages became increasingly difficult and dangerous, and Western pilgrims began banding together and carrying weapons to protect themselves as they tried to make their way to Christianity’s holiest site in Palestine: notable armed pilgrimages occurred between 1064-65 and 1087-91.

In the Western and Central Mediterranean, the balance of power was tipping towards the Christians and away from the Muslims. In A.D. 1034, the Pisans sacked a Muslim base in North Africa, finally extending their counterattacks across the Mediterranean. They also mounted counterattacks against Sicily in 1062-63. In 1087, a large-scale allied Italian force sacked Mahdia, in present-day Tunisia, in a campaign jointly sponsored by Pop Victor III and the countess of Tuscany. Clearly the Italian- Christians were gaining the upper hand.

But while Christian power in the Western and Central Meditteranean was growing, it was in trouble in the East. The rise of the Muslim Turks had shifted the weight of military power against the Byzantines, who lost considerable ground again in the 1060’s. Attempting to head off further incursions in far-Eastern Asia Minor in 1071, the Byzantines suffered a devastating defeat at Turkish hands in the battle of Manzikert.

Desperate, the Byzantines sent appeals for help Westward, directing these appeals primarily at the person they saw as chief Western authority: the Pope, who, as we have seen, had already been directing Christian resistance to Muslim attacks. In early 1070’s, the Pope was Gregory VII, and he immediately began plans to lead an expedition to the Byzantines’ aid.

He became enmeshed in conflict with the German emperors, however (what historians call “The Investiture Controversy”), and was ultimately unable to offer meaningful help. Still, the Byzantines persisted in their appeals, and finally, in A.D. 1095, Pope Urban II realized Gregory VII’s desire, in what turned into the First Crusade. Whether a crusade was what either Urban or the Byzantines had in mind is a matter of some controversy. But the seamless progression of events.

Far from being unprovoked, then, the crusades actually represented the first great Western Christian counterattack against Muslim attacks which had taken place continually from inception of Islam until the eleventh century, and which continued thereafter, mostly unabated.


--- End of Part 1 ---


Three of Christianity’s five primary episcopal sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) had been captured by the seventh century; both of the others (Rome and Constantinople) had been attacked in the centuries before the crusades. The latter would be captured in 1453, leaving one of the five (Rome) in Christian hands by A.D. 1500. Rome was again threatened in the sixteenth century. This is not the absence of provocation; rather, it is a deadly and persistent threat, and one which had to be answered by forceful defense if Christendom were to survive. The crusades were simple one tool in the defense.
To put the question in perspective, one need only to consider how many times Christian forces attacked either Mecca or Medina. The answer, of course, is never.



Myth #2:


Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich. Again, not true. One version of Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont in 1095 urging French warriors to embark on what would become known as the First Crusade does not that they might “Make spoil of [the enemy’s] treasures” (8), but this was no more than an observation on the usual way of financing war in ancient and medieval society. And Fulcher of Chartres did write in the early twelfth century that those who had been poor in the West had become rich in the East as a result of their efforts on the First Crusade, obviously suggesting that others might do likewise.

But Fulcher’s statement has to be read in its context, which was a chronic and eventually fatal shortage of manpower for the defense of the crusader states. Fulcher was not being entirely deceitful when he pointed out that one might become rich as a result of crusading. But he was not being entirely straightforward either, because for most participants, crusading was ruinously expensive. As Fred Cazel has noted, “Few crusaders had sufficient cash both to pay for their obligations at home and to support themselves decently on a crusade.” (10) From the very beginning, financial considerations played a major role in crusade planning. The early crusaders sold off so many of their possessions to finance their expeditions that they caused widespread inflation.

Although later crusaders took this into account and began saving money long before they set out, they expense was still nearly prohibitive. Despite the fact that money did not yet play a major role in Western European economies in the eleventh century, there was ”A heavy and persistent flow of money” from West to East as a result of the crusades, and the financial demands of crusading caused “Profound economic and monetary changes in both Western Europe and the Levant.” (11)

The pope resorted to even more desperate ploys to raise money to finance crusades, from instituting the first income taxes in the early thirteenth century to making a series of adjustments in the way that indulgences were handled that eventually led to the abuses condemned by Martin Luther. Even by the thirteenth century, most crusade planners assumed that it would be impossible to attract enough volunteers to make a crusade possible, and crusading became the province of kings and Popes, losing its original popular character. When Hospitaller Master Fulk of Villaret wrote a crusade memo to Pope Clement V in about A.D. 1305, he noted that “it would be a good idea if the lord pope took steps enabling him to assemble a great treasure. Without which such a passage [crusade] would be impossible.” (12)

A few years later, Marino Sanudo estimated that it would cost five million florins over two years to effect the conquest of Egypt. Although he did not say so, and may not have realized it, the sums necessary simply made the goal impossible to achieve.

By this time, most responsible officials in the West had come to the same conclusion, which explains why fewer and fewer crusades were launched from the fourteenth century on.

In short: Very few people became rich by crusading, and their numbers then dwarfed by those who were bankrupt. Most medieval people were quite well aware if this, and did not consider crusading a way to improve their financial situations.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 10:54 AM
And if you do read it can you at least counter it or do you want to scuffle about why Islam is a false ideology and religion?

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 10:57 AM
B1.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:01 AM
B2.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
br0bbb is not online. br0bbb
Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Total Posts: 1534
30 Nov 2014 11:03 AM
ITT: no sources
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:03 AM
B3.
Where is you son B)

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:04 AM
@Br0bb
I am only half way done writing my paper, calm down noob.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
br0bbb is not online. br0bbb
Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Total Posts: 1534
30 Nov 2014 11:05 AM
"@Br0bb
I am only half way done writing my paper, calm down noob"

why post it and bump it if its not complete
provide sources or piss off pls
Report Abuse
CreepyRasta is not online. CreepyRasta
Joined: 12 May 2013
Total Posts: 3829
30 Nov 2014 11:05 AM
Nice copy and pasting skills.
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:06 AM
@Creepy
It's my own writing
Nice assuming B)

@Br0bb
Someone's butt hurt about the truth.
Read it first plebe.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:10 AM
B[insert number]

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
br0bbb is not online. br0bbb
Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Total Posts: 1534
30 Nov 2014 11:10 AM
i read it
you didnt provide any sources

and no its not your own writing, just google a part of it
Report Abuse
AllDueRespect is not online. AllDueRespect
Joined: 18 Nov 2014
Total Posts: 1243
30 Nov 2014 11:11 AM
This is zac and yeah i read the whole thing

Even though both muslims and christians did deplorable acts in order to gain power, this does not make either of the religions themselves illegitimate. Religions are based on beliefs that generally always get sidetracked for more practical, 'wrongful' means. It happened then on both sides with the crusades and it happens now. Religion itself doesn't begot violence, the boundaries that exist between two beliefs do, and that extends beyond religion.

You can't say that the riots and violence in the middle east is caused or encouraged by islam's actual teachings; rather, and this is where the core difference b/w the two religions lie, it is the community that is doing this solely on their own, using religion as a scapegoat

The koran itself doesn't promote any violence, and even concepts like jihad have been skewed to the point where 'religious' and political leaders have used defending of faith to justify conflict, kinda exactly what happened in the crusades

Of course the crusades were done with reason, christianity felt threatened by the gaining influence that islam had, and decided to fight to keep it away. This, of course, makes sense but our foresight today shows us where such a conflict is wrong to have

I can see and totally understand that back in the day violence had to begot violence and i see the crusades as instrumental to particularly catholicism's success in the long run
Report Abuse
AllDueRespect is not online. AllDueRespect
Joined: 18 Nov 2014
Total Posts: 1243
30 Nov 2014 11:11 AM
"i read it
you didnt provide any sources"

I based my reply solely off of OP's text by the way, but a lot of this from what i know is historically true
Report Abuse
zacmaq is not online. zacmaq
Joined: 13 Jan 2013
Total Posts: 35194
30 Nov 2014 11:13 AM
Of course my reply was a massive ass wordwall but hell I think i got the gist of what I feel
Report Abuse
br0bbb is not online. br0bbb
Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Total Posts: 1534
30 Nov 2014 11:17 AM
op copied this from some book called "the truth of the crusades"
the author of the book also wrote one defending the inquisition
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:20 AM
@AllDue

"The koran itself doesn't promote any violence, and even concepts like jihad have been skewed to the point where 'religious' and political leaders have used defending of faith to justify conflict"

Let me read off some versus.
1. "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - (8:12)

2. "Slay them [non-believers] wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers... Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." - (2:191)

3. "Those who believe fight in the name of Allah..." - (4:76)

" Religions are based on beliefs that generally always get sidetracked for more practical, 'wrongful' means."

That's funny, these are versus for the Muslims to follow, and Muhammad himself spoken to by Gabriel was told that those who do not follow Islam to the fullest are just as bad as the non-believers and should face damnation.

Here are some versus of how Islam treats women:
1. Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that [she] is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and to submit to his sxl desires."

2. Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house with his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain." - Noting that Aisha married the 40 year old Muhammad at age 6 and first had sx at age 9 with him.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:22 AM
@Br0bb
Your prophet beheaded 900 women and children in one day because they were non-believers. Yet you say the source is biased?

Is it not true that your source, the Qu'ran biased anyways and is bigotted?

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:23 AM
Sources if you're going to say I copied it, here are the sources I copied from the same page.

Notes

Warren Hollister, J. Sears McGee, and Gale Stokes, The West Transformed: A History of Western Civilization, vol. 1 (New York: Cengage/Wadsworth, 2000), 311.
R. Scott Peoples, Crusade of Kings (Rockville, MD: Wildside, 2009), 7.
Ibid.
The Crusades: Campaign Sourcebook, ed. Allen Varney (Lake Geneva, WI: TSR, 1994), 2.
Sir Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades: Vol. III, The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 480.
Francesco Gabrieli, The Arabs: A Compact History, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1963), 47.
Reynald of Châtillon’s abortive expedition into the Red Sea, in 1182–83, cannot be counted, as it was plainly a geopolitical move designed to threaten Saladin’s claim to be the protector of all Islam, and just as plainly had no hope of reaching either city.
“The Version of Baldric of Dol,” in The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, 2nd ed., ed. Edward Peters (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 32.
Ibid., 220–21.
Fred Cazel, “Financing the Crusades,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. Kenneth Setton, vol. 6 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 117.
John Porteous, “Crusade Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions,” in A History of the Crusades, 354.
“A memorandum by Fulk of Villaret, master of the Hospitallers, on the crusade to regain the Holy Land, c. 1305,” in Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274–1580, ed. and trans. Norman Housley (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 42.
Norman Housley, “Costing the Crusade: Budgeting for Crusading Activity in the Fourteenth Century,” in The Experience of Crusading, ed. Marcus Bull and Norman Housley, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 59.
John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 142. Not all historians agree; Jonathan Riley-Smith thinks it was probably lower, though he does not indicate just how much lower. See Riley-Smith, “Casualties and Knights on the First Crusade,” Crusades 1 (2002), 17–19, suggesting casualties of perhaps 34 percent, higher than those of the Wehrmacht in World War II, which were themselves very high at about 30 percent. By comparison, American losses in World War II in the three major service branches ranged between about 1.5 percent and 3.66 percent.
The ‘Templar of Tyre’: Part III of the ‘Deeds of the Cypriots,’ trans. Paul F. Crawford (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), §351, 54.
Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 36.
John 15:13.
Jonathan Riley-Smith, “Crusading as an Act of Love,” History 65 (1980), 191–92.
Letter from T. E. Lawrence to Robert Graves, 28 June 1927, in Robert Graves and B. H. Liddell-Hart, T. E. Lawrence to His Biographers (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1938), 52, note.
Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, 71.
Jonathan Riley-Smith, “Islam and the Crusades in History,” Crusades 2 (2003), 161.
Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, (New York: Routledge, 2000), 20.
Riley-Smith, Crusading, Christianity, and Islam, 73.
There is some disagreement in the primary sources on the question of who was responsible for the deaths of these refugees; the crusaders knew that a large Egyptian army was on its way to attack them, and there does seem to have been a military decision a day or two later that they simply could not risk leaving potential enemies alive. On the question of the massacre, see Benjamin Kedar, “The Jerusalem Massacre of July 1099 in the Western Historiography of the Crusades,” Crusades 3 (2004), 15–75.
France, Victory in the East, 355–56.
Raymond of Aguilers, in August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-witnesses and Participants (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1921), 262.
Revelation 14:20.
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:28 AM
B82992.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
br0bbb is not online. br0bbb
Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Total Posts: 1534
30 Nov 2014 11:29 AM
"1. "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - (8:12)

2. "Slay them [non-believers] wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers... Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." - (2:191)

3. "Those who believe fight in the name of Allah..." - (4:76)"

cherrypicked verses m8, learn how 2 context

"Here are some versus of how Islam treats women:"

again you cherrypicked that from muslim 4:2127, itd mean a whole different thing if you read the context

same thing with bukhari 72:715

hadiths are not reliable anyway, many were fabricated and the prophet originally banned them

"Your prophet beheaded 900 women and children in one day because they were non-believers."

source?

"Yet you say the source is biased?"

you didnt provide any sources though?

"Is it not true that your source, the Qu'ran biased anyways and is bigotted?"

what are you talking about?
Report Abuse
br0bbb is not online. br0bbb
Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Total Posts: 1534
30 Nov 2014 11:30 AM
"Sources if you're going to say I copied it, here are the sources I copied from the same page."

>all are anti islam books

>no actual unbiased sources
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:32 AM
What source is the Qu'ran?
It still doesn't change the fact he married a 6 year old, war mongered, most of his versus in Medican were anti-Christian/Jew/Gentile, he hit women, he beat women, he race-baits.

At least savior didn't hit a woman.
And yes, that was a whole versus, thus meaning an entire explained point, thus providing its own details.

He still hit a woman because of something so small.

- Add 16k.
Report Abuse
PyrrhusII is not online. PyrrhusII
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 2632
30 Nov 2014 11:33 AM
@Br0bb
How'd you read that many books that fast?
Hm, you seem to be biased.

- Add 16k
Report Abuse
ReneDescartes is not online. ReneDescartes
Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Total Posts: 7005
30 Nov 2014 11:34 AM
how do we know it's not a biased translator of the qu'ran trying to portray islam negatively?
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Off Topic
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image