Rich wrote in message

I found it.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=am...en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&selm=9b4c6065.0303110536.7bb32a3f%40posting.goog le.com&rnum=1

I took a look and you got the posts written by


I also noticed that you copied the stuff written by the guy whom I
referred to as Indian Hindu hate monger. All he did was coming up
with crap. I am sorry that you took him seriously.

You should have got some books written by unbiased historians before
you decided to trash Islam and its Prophet, will you?

There is not much difference in Islam and Christianity when it comes
to crap, crpas which were made by humans.

For the story of Muhammed, I strongly suggest that you get a few books
written by real historians.


BTW, I agree with you about islam.

Which part did you agree with? Are you sure that what you read was
written by me?


By the way, here is something you may want to read about Muhammed.

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's
pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing
army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue;
if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right
divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its
instruments and without its supports."
Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAHATMA GANDHI, speaking on the character of Muhammad, (pbuh) says in
(YOUNG
INDIA):

"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed
sway
over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced
that
it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the
scheme
of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the
Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion
to this
friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute
trust
in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried
everything
before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd
volume (of
the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to
read of
the great life."

--------------------------------------------------------

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but
he
was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the
religious and secular level.

Michael H. Hart
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. New
York:
Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results
are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great
man in
modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws
and
empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material
powers
which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only
armies,
legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in
one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved
the
altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . .
his
forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to
one idea
and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his
mystic
conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all
these
attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the
power
to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the
immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter
telling
what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the
other
starting an idea with words.

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of
ideas,
restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of
twenty
terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As
regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may
well
ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What nonMuslim say about Muhhamed
http://cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html


Tolerance in Islan by Pickthall, an English convert
http://cyberistan.org/islamic/toleran1.html


I apologized those at sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem; this is my last
post on this thread.

I have been biting my tongue about the IQ test but I can't any more.

How reliable is a test that use the term "Asian" to represent the most
diverse of ethnic and cultural groups?

[.....]
rather than face her peers ...
[....]

State your peers.

IQ is a metric, and like all metrics, it's has no concrete meaning
other than meaning given to it by those who perceive this metric.

I could use any metric to measure intelligence. For example, I could
measure intelligence with the meter. I could say taller people are
smarter than shorter people. And why couldn't this be true? Maybe
taller people are perceived to be more beautiful than shorter people,
so taller people would earn more wealth and their descendents afforded
a more educated future than otherwise. So in time my meaningless
metric becomes scientifically provable and then what will you say?

"It's all a lie"


(amanda) wrote in message . com...
I have been biting my tongue about the IQ test but I can't any more.

How reliable is a test that use the term "Asian" to represent the most
diverse of ethnic and cultural groups?

If you want to know more about the diversity, ask me and I will give
you tons of specific examples. Here is one: An example of cultural
differences (that affects their educational goals) of the two groups -
ethnically the same and speak the same EXACT langauge - in Burma who
are the descendants of the people who came to Burma from a town known
as Surat, India during the British colonial days.

Now, do not assume that they are racially the same as the majority of
northern Indian population, i.e Indo-Aryan. What I am aware of is that
they are descendants of those who came from Central Asia (to india)
and may be MIXED with the locals of India (I haven't checked into
that) like the majority of the current day Pakistanis.

See the complexity yet?

Add to that the Afghans, particularly the Pathan, which also form a
comunity in Burma.

And then you have all these different native groups in Burma, namely
Burman, Mon, Shan, Karen, Kachin, Chin, etc. where the Karen with a
good size Christian population now claiming that they are one of the
lost tribes.

The Mon are the first group who adopted Bhuddism which made them the
most literate group *in the old old days* through the monastry
education. Shans are the stauch Bhuddists too. I read somewhere on
the Internet that Mon originated from ancient India. They look like
typical oriental though some have darker skin while others are very
light-skinned) instead of the dravidians of ancient Inida.

Shan is ethincally similar to some groups in Thialand from the area
that borders Burma. Talking about Thailand, not all Thias are
ethincally the same.

Now, the Chinese would claim that the high score of IQ tests is
because of them Chinese, i.e not all Asians are equal. And the
Japanese thinks (may be not so much anymore) they are superior to all
other Asians.

Does that term *Asian* include the Arabs?

What about the people of Egypt (I avoid calling them Egyptians to
differentiate from the ancient Egyptians) some of whom are Arabs, some
of whom are descendants of anciant Egyptians, some are descendnats of
a group called Berber (my spellig may be wrong).

And how many Ethiopians look or act like a typical African.

Why are people using the racist IQ tests as God's given ruler to
measure intlligence?

(amanda) wrote in message . com...
Rich wrote in message

I found it.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=am...en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&selm=9b4c6065.0303110536.7bb32a3f%40posting.goog le.com&rnum=1

I took a look and you got the posts written by


I also noticed that you copied the stuff written by the guy whom I
referred to as Indian Hindu hate monger. All he did was coming up
with crap. I am sorry that you took him seriously.

You should have got some books written by unbiased historians before
you decided to trash Islam and its Prophet, will you?

There is not much difference in Islam and Christianity when it comes
to crap, crpas which were made by humans.

For the story of Muhammed, I strongly suggest that you get a few books
written by real historians.


BTW, I agree with you about islam.

Which part did you agree with? Are you sure that what you read was
written by me?


By the way, here is something you may want to read about Muhammed.

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's
pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing
army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue;
if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right
divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its
instruments and without its supports."
Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAHATMA GANDHI, speaking on the character of Muhammad, (pbuh) says in
(YOUNG
INDIA):

"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed
sway
over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced
that
it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the
scheme
of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the
Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion
to this
friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute
trust
in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried
everything
before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd
volume (of
the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to
read of
the great life."

--------------------------------------------------------

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but
he
was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the
religious and secular level.

Michael H. Hart
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. New
York:
Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results
are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great
man in
modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws
and
empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material
powers
which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only
armies,
legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in
one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved
the
altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . .
his
forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to
one idea
and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his
mystic
conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all
these
attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the
power
to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the
immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter
telling
what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the
other
starting an idea with words.

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of
ideas,
restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of
twenty
terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As
regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may
well
ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What nonMuslim say about Muhhamed
http://cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html


Tolerance in Islan by Pickthall, an English convert
http://cyberistan.org/islamic/toleran1.html


I apologized those at sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem; this is my last
post on this thread.


I went to the link I provided
(http://cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html) and as I read the quotes
there, I have decided to post the following since Rich has copied and
posted the crap written by an Indian hate monger who claimed to be an
ex-Muslim.

Th fact that Rich so easily copied his words and posted here made me
realize that even in these science ngs, there are those who know
nothing about Islam and Muhammed and yet ready to accept any negative
statements from someone like that guy without a doubt.

This is my last post as I do not want to make this thread any longer
especially when it has completely gone out of context.

Rich ,

If you have anything to say to me about my Asian Racism, etc., feel
free to email me.

Below is more about using the sword and the great man you referred to
as a Phedophile, after rading the hatemongers' posts.

Keep in mind that thoes hatemongers has no historians writing
Biography about them but Muhammed has many.

Note the name "K. S. Ramakrishna Rao". It is an Indian Hindu name.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in 'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989

My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not
generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time
need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The
theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any
quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that "there is no
compulsion in religion" is well known.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,' 1944

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so
widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they
went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,' Reader's
Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.

"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has
widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the
sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur'an is
explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."

"Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad ……. (I cut the
rest).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca,' Oxford, 1953.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral
character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a
leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his
fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more
problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of
history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not
merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of
purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the
errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the
conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of
plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with
difficulty.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe'

Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca,
in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest
influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many
empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may
perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(amanda) wrote:
Rich wrote:
amanda replied:
Rich wrote in message
...

[...]

as they have been told by the 19th century European racists

Is there an Asian country which is not racist?

Whya re you talking abput cpuntries. Why not individuals?

Cause it's not just individuals, it's a cultural thing.
Why don't you talk about individual Americans?

You are the one who accused all Asian countries as racists.

It was an observation. I stand by it.

All? Even Thialand?

Do you mean Thailand?

http://www.eslcafe.com/jobinfo/asia/...3233-26315.txt

http://www.eslcafe.com/jobinfo/asia/...8179-60192.txt

http://www.eslcafe.com/jobinfo/asia/...8545-13729.txt

I'm betting the last guy is white.

I've been to China a couple of times. People treated me well but I
overheard someone saying that she couldn't imagine how someone could
date Western men because they were hairy animals. People stared openly
at me when I walked around a small industrial city a couple hours
outside of Guangzhou and I was goofed on openly by a cab driver in
Jilin provence. I shot a handgun at targets at an amusement park (much
different than western amusement parks) I visited. A lot of people
crowded around to watch.

Everyone is racist to some extent. I've been called white boy within
the past week while walking around in my neighborhood. Specifically,
the phrase was "I'm going to kick your ass white boy". A black guy
yelled it out the window of a passing car. I wondered if he was one of
the two guys I fought off when I was mugged (attempted anyway, I
didn't have any cash) last year.

An ex-gf of mine grew (from my Montreal days) grew up in Quebec City.
She was of Chinese descent. Her mother was from the mountains and was
tall; her father was from Hong Kong and was short. She's about 5'9".
The Quebec City chinese community is predominantly smaller from what
she says. They ostracized her because she was large. They told her she
was part white. She's gotten crap from whites also. Once while trying
to get back into Canada after visiting Niagra Falls, NY a border gaurd
kept asking her for her passport. She showed him her drivers license
and talked to him in French but he wouldn't believe she was Canadian.

My mother is anti-semetic. She was raised Catholic but is of Jewish
descent. Go figure. I've discovered (admitted to myself) that I've got
some deep seated racial bias.

Ah well.