Homs falls to Assad

[Targon]

They were. Their borders were different. The Rashidun "only" conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Levant, parts of Egypt and most of Iran.
The others all of Iberia, Sicily, parts of Southern Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Crete, all of Northern Africa, all of Caucasus, half of Turkey, half of Sudan, parts of Horn of Africa, Swahili coastline, most of Central Asia, all of Afghanistan and half of Pakistan etc.

They were also distinct Caliphates/Empires with different policies, rulers etc.

Doesn't contradicts what I'm saying, what I'm saying is a different political group revolted and took over the existing entity, new conquests are irrevelant to this.

 

[notsuperstitious]

That dude is ****? Shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Says the Indian dude who will dance for anyone.

There is a saying for you : Begani shadi main Abdullah deewana.

you got no dog in this fight but you will whore yourself out.

And you have the nerve to talk shit.

That dude is your Saudi Lion master. Now kiss his behind and stop abusing Indians like the obsessed pakistani you are.

 

[al-Hasani]

Doesn't contradicts what I'm saying, what I'm saying is a different political group revolted and took over the existing entity, new conquests are irrevelant to this.

No, they are not irrelevant. That's only in your imagination. They were very different in terms of size, politics and were ruled by different Arab dynasties. That all were Caliphates is not important here. They were distinct empires and are known as such for a reason.
It's not any different to the Chinese empires for instance. They also have a continuation. Nothing wrong with this.

 

[Targon]

No, they are not irrelevant. That's only in your imagination. They were very different in terms of size, politics and were ruled by different Arab dynasties. That all were Caliphates is not important here. They were distinct empires and are known as such for a reason.
It's not any different to the Chinese empires for instance. They also have a continuation. Nothing wrong with this.

How are they not irrevelant ? what I'm saying is, they're not built from scratch, they came to power with pretty much like a coup d'etat or a civil war, they defeated the other political entity and automatically got control of the country, what they have done after that is irrevelant, nobody says they have to stay exactly same.

 

[Jaanbaz]

@Jaanbaz
here is a mental sick is trolling

Which one bro? This thread looks like a troll fest.

 

[al-Hasani]

How are they not irrevelant ? what I'm saying is, they're not built from scratch, they came to power with pretty much like a coup d'etat or a civil war, they defeated the other political entity and automatically got control of the country, what they have done after that is irrevelant, nobody says they have to stay exactly same.

What? Most empires are a continuation. Still their borders were vastly different, they were ruled by distinct Arab dynasties, had different policies and ruled different parts of the world on all 3 continents. They are known as distinctive empires/caliphates for a reason. Besides many of them had to start from the scratch in many areas for instance the Umayyads, Abbasids and the Fatimid swhich are not included here.
In any case there is nothing wrong with continuation. Most empires that followed other empires of a certain people (Chinese, Greeks, Italians) had similar continuations.

 

[Informant]

That dude is your Saudi Lion master. Now kiss his behind and stop abusing Indians like the obsessed pakistani you are.

Haha i was talking about he man, not indians in general. We have no saudi master, he is the mufti of Saudi i guess. Please man why are you even in this convo. this doesnt concern you. Abdullah sahab nachiyay kam, botul pe wazn zara halka. You will badmouth anything if it touches Islam. What dog do you have in Syria? As a Muslim? Nopes. As an Arab? Nopes.

Bashar is an evil dude, his stubborness drove Syria into civil war. Not saudi, they just took advantage of the situation.

Hahah please dont talk about slaves man, 10000 whites ruled over millions and millions.

 

[al-Hasani]

Haha i was talking about he man, not indians in general. We have no saudi master, he is the mufti of Saudi i guess. Please man why are you even in this convo. this doesnt concern you. Abdullah sahab nachiyay kam, botul pe wazn zara halka. You will badmouth anything if it touches Islam. What dog do you have in Syria? As a Muslim? Nopes. As an Arab? Nopes.

Bashar is an evil dude, his stubborness drove Syria into civil war. Not saudi, they just took advantage of the situation.

Hahah please dont talk about slaves man, 10000 whites ruled over millions and millions.

Moreover a nearly 80 year old blind man with a glass eye. LOL. All they got. They can see my photos as a reply.

Those Indians surely have a phobia for Islam. I am not sure what you Pakistanis have done to them. It's getting sick.

 

[Targon]

What? Most empires are a continuation. Still their borders were vastly different, they were ruled by distinct Arab dynasties, had different policies and ruled different parts of the world on all 3 continents. They are known as distinctive empires/caliphates for a reason. Besides many of them had to start from the scratch in many areas for instance the Abbasids and the Fatimid which are not included here.
In any case there is nothing wrong with continuation. Most empires that followed other empires of a certain people (Chinese, Greeks, Italians) had similar continuations.

Their expanding or shrinking of borders are irrevelant, what I'm saying is they're not founded from scratch, they're like different dynasties succeding each other in same political entity. Now I'm not saying that they can't be considered seperate states, I'm just telling this because you seem to be boasting so much over this issue.

 

[al-Hasani]

Their expanding or shrinking of borders are irrevelant, what I'm saying is they're not founded from scratch, they're like different dynasties succeding each other in same political entity. Now I'm not saying that they can't be considered seperate states, I'm just telling this because you seem to be boasting so much over this issue.

Eh, yes they had to start from the stretch since they had to conquer enormous amounts of new territory that the previous empires/caliphates did not conquer and they were totally different entities politically, economically etc. Ruled by different dynasties. It's moronic to claim that they are the same or that they are direct continuations.

You can also say that the British Empire was a continuation of the Kingdom of England but only clowns would say that there would be no difference or that the British Empire did not have to fight for all the new lands that they gained compared to the Kingdom of England which just ruled England.

Anyway that is wrong since they were totally different entities what ruled over very different lands. Each dynasty conquered their own territory. It does not matter here at all that they were successor states of the Caliphate. They are distinct empires and considered as such. The Fatimids were not a Caliphate but started from a scratch and become one of the biggest empires as well. The size of the Ottomans at their greatest heights. Yet only a "Caliphate" recognized by the Shias.

Anyway not the topic.

 

[Targon]

Eh, yes they had to start from the stretch since they had to conquer enormous amounts of new territory that the previous empires/caliphates did not conquer and they were totally different entities politically, economically etc. Ruled by different dynasties. It's moronic to claim that they are the same or that they are direct continuations.

You can also say that the British Empire was a continuation of the Kingdom of England but only clowns would say that there would be no difference or that the British Empire did not have to fight for all the new lands that they gained compared to the Kingdom of England which just ruled England.

Anyway that is wrong since they were totally different entities what ruled over very different lands. Each dynasty conquered their own territory. It does not matter here at all that they were successor states of the Caliphate. They are distinct empires and considered as such. The Fatimids were not a Caliphate but started from a scratch and become one of the biggest empires as well. The size of the Ottomans at their greatest heights. Yet only a "Caliphate" recognized by the Shias.

Anyway not the topic.

Of course they're direct continuations, are you comparing lets say a tribesman founding an empire and a local governor taking over the state by a coup ? one has nothing while other uses existing resources if he expands his borders, British Empire did not came from space, its a result of natural growth from the Kingdom period, without the Kingdom period it would probably not exist.

Again I'm not saying they can't be considered seperate states, I'm just saying you're over boasting.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Those Indians surely have a phobia for Islam. I am not sure what you Pakistanis have done to them. It's getting sick.

We toke their holy land right out of their hands and tore it apart.

 

[al-Hasani]

We toke their holy land right out of their hands and tore it apart.

India is a new British creation my friend. 67 years old. There is nothing called a Indian ethnic group either. It just a nationality. What is now India is made up by hundreds of distinct ethnic groups that differ a lot. Just like before 1947 where there were hundreds of states often at conflict with each other and hundreds of ethnic groups.

India is basically like if the entire Middle East united into a single entity while the Arab world amounts to a united Punjab for instance.

So it goes beyond my wildest dreams to read that some Indians consider Pakistan "their land". Laughable if true.

 

[Jaanbaz]

India is a new British creation my friend. 67 years old. There is nothing called a Indian ethnic group either. It just a nationality. What is now India is made up by hundreds of distinct ethnic groups that differ a lot. Just like before 1947 where there were hundreds of states often at conflict with each other and hundreds of ethnic groups.

India is basically like if the entire Middle East united into a single entity while the Arab world amounts to a united Punjab for instance.

So it goes beyond my wildest dreams to read that some Indians consider Pakistan "their land". Laughable if true.

Tell that to the Hindutva trolls and their soon to be PM Modi. They see Pakistanis as barbarians who took their land. Alas they have been ruled by different barbarian since 10th Century. Old wounds will take time to heal.

 

[al-Hasani]

Tell that to the Hindutva trolls and their soon to be PM Modi. They see Pakistanis as barbarians who took their land. Alas they have been ruled by different barbarian since 10th Century. Old wounds will take time to heal.

It seems so. Have you noticed that in any news about Islam the Indians on this forum are always the first and basically more or less the only ones to attack Islam and Muslims viciously? Yet no Arabs, Persians, Turks are commenting on Indian issues on their section or writing nonsense against Hinduism or whatever they believe in.

I have noticed this for a long time but since I like a few Indian users and in reality have nothing against Indians as a people or country I have not commented on that fact. But this thread made me do it since I saw the same again from them.