FAQ |
Calendar |
![]() |
|
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is the West kidding itself about the good intentions of Islam?
I have a comment to make on this article.
I watched an documentary by a historian on the history of Islam, Judaism and Catholicism. Please keep in mind as I continue my post that the Catholic church's beliefs and practices are actually much different than others that are unfortunately lumped under the convenient term of "Christianity"...so my distinction here and why I will not use the term "Christian" as broadly as some unfortunately do. I am specifically referring to the Catholic church in my post. What I learned from this documentary was that the Muslim population learned about holy war (jihad) from the Catholic church's crusades. Before then, it was not a part of their practices. They were attacked under the Catholic church's greedy need to conquer at all costs and gain wealth & more power, which as with any military type campaign that has this goal, means to slaughter all and do all the evil that goes with it. Anything goes to reach that ultimate goal. If it is done under a powerful entity (religious or not), there is even more zeal, as those fighting under that name want status, riches and fame as well. These reasons are not biblical ones by any means...to conquer for fame, riches and egotistic power. These are unarguably historically Catholic reasons, though. Anyway, my point is, based on this historian's findings, that Catholics fought their holy wars first against the Muslims (Crusades) and the Muslims fought back using the same idea of holy war. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Welcome to the SDMB.
Here is a link to the column being discussed, |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm. Narble, I think that you missed something. First, I am *NOT* an expert on the crusades. However, the stated purpose was to **RECLAIM** lands that had been attacked and taken by Muslims. If the Muslims were all-peaceful, there would hardly be a reason to retake lands that were never conquered by the sword in the first place.
I am not saying that Wikipedia is exactly the ultimate reference source and completely infallible, but it is a good starting place.... Violent conquest has been part of Islam from the beginning, whether you use the "Jihad" term or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...tary_campaigns Last edited by Harrkev; 09-22-2017 at 12:56 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now for a different context.
Now, for a different context to this, we need to ask a different question: how well does Islam play with others? The answer is generally not good. How tolerant are they of other opinions? Not at all. Period.
Islam is SO tolerant that you can be KILLED for blasphemy or changing religions.. "A new Pew Research Center analysis finds that, as of 2014, about a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies, and that more than one-in-ten (13%) nations had laws or policies penalizing apostasy. The legal punishments for such transgressions vary from fines to death." Guess which countries these are? You will never guess… http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...and-blasphemy/ Next, let's look at the Asa Bibi case. This is about Pakistan, not exactly a hot bed of violent activity, but generally considered a "mainstream" Muslim country. Asia Noreen Bibi is a Christian in Pakistan. She is currently waiting EXECUTION for blasphemy against Mohammed. Yup, she was tried and convicted without any hard evidence, just the word of Muslim women who were mad that she would dare drink from the same well as them. "The general population was less sympathetic towards Noreen. Several signs were erected in Sheikhupura and other rural areas declaring support for the blasphemy laws, including one that called for Noreen to be beheaded.[27] Mohammad Saleem, a member of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan Party, organized a demonstration in Rawalpindi and led a small crowd chanting, "Hang her, hang her."[12] In December 2010, a month after Noreen's conviction, a Muslim cleric announced a 500,000 Pakistani rupee award (the equivalent of $10,000)[7] to anyone who would kill her.[3][41] One survey reported that around 10 million Pakistanis had said that they would be willing to personally kill her out of either religious conviction or for the reward.[7] The village mosque in Ittan Wali was reportedly indifferent towards Noreen's plight; its imam, Qari Mohammed Salim, stated that he had wept for joy on learning that she had been sentenced to death and threatened that some people would "take the law into their own hands" should she be pardoned or released." So, yeah, all they want is peace, and the execution of anybody who would dare be accused of blasphemy. Where is this peace and tolerance that they are supposed to practice? The GENERAL POPULATION is OK with this, as it is a part of both their culture and legal system. So, a poll showed that 5% of the general population of Pakistan (10 million people) would be willing to kill an accused blasphemer with their OWN HANDS. What could possibly go wrong bringing them into a country with free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case |
|
|||
#5
|
|||
|
|||
That's been hashed out many times on this board, Harrkev. There are fundamentalist Christians who believe that their God wants them to kill others with different values and beliefs. Would you consider the Westboro Baptist Church representative of all Christians? There are radical extremists in every faith, and in groups without a religious figurehead.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Just repeating what I've heard ... our problems are with the Jihadists, which is just a tiny minority of Wahhabists, which in turn is a minority of Sunnis ... I think it's wrong to blame all of Christiandom for the acts of The Klan ... thus I think it's wrong to blame all of Islam by the acts of Jihadists ... Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world ... I understand it's not the Garden of Eden there but she's hardly a terrorist hot-spot ... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Funny....
Of course the well-known nature of the peaceful (oh no, actually not peaceful) forced conversions to the Christianity in the early Europe are so well known... Or the bloody suppression of anything the Christian church hieararchies decided was heritical - the real reason for the success of the Islamic take over of the Levant and the Egypt from the eastern Roman, not any great war genuis, only the promises to the local 'heretical' christians and the jews to leave them alone. The focus on the tax payments and the contract law. silly hypocritical faux argumentations. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Centuries before the Crusades, Muslim warriors emerged from Arabia to conquer neighboring lands, ranging as far west as Spain, losing only to Charles Martel (otherwise the history of France would have been quite different) and ranging far east as well. While many motivations explain why this conquest occurred, religion was one of the reasons behind it.
Of course, the very fast Muslim expansion stopped. Perhaps the enthusiasm for religious conquest waned after a while? Or did it have something to do with political splintering? But I don't see this as startlingly different from the history of Christianity. Perhaps because Christianity effectively "took over" a strong nation (Rome) that had already conquered so much territory and so many people that a sweeping conquest beyond Rome's borders would have been difficult early in Christianity's history. Certainly missionaries were extremely effective at converting areas the Romans had never conquered, such as Ireland, Scandinavia, and Ukraine, despite often having no military power whatsoever, then destroying local religions and imposing tithes on the people. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The brief holding of the mediterranean France showed well it was beyond the long term range of the old Ummayads. Quote:
"no military power" is a fiction as presenting no conquests by sword and by fire of the lands beyond the old roman sphere - the conversion of many portions of the north and the eastern europe was military as the poor old prussian pagans could attest to you. Last edited by Ramira; 09-22-2017 at 07:00 PM. |
|
|||
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Is the West kidding itself about the good intentions of Islam?" About a very militant minority of Muslims? Yes.
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4930742/...ce/?source=dam Quote:
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Just curious, do you not understand the comparative frame of reference of history to history or is it just emptyposturing?
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
And moreover, when's the last time that the WBC has executed anyone for their lack of faith or sent a suicide bomber somewhere?
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
When was the last time white Americans lynched a black american? When was the last time white americans killed out of the race prejudice a minority?
|
|
|||
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The past was harsh and barbaric. Christianity has largely gotten past that step. Islam, in many places, has not. What kind of weak-ass gotcha is that, anyways? "Sure, my religion is responsible for numerous atrocities every week the world over, but look at what this other religion did 500 years ago!" Every single person condemning modern Islam will gladly condemn the actions of Christianity in the past. In fact, many of them will gladly condemn the actions of Christianity today insofar as Christianity is responsible for awful things (like the abusive cultishness of the Quiverfull movement, the dominionists, the anti-gay movement, etc).
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The subject was the past. The response was about the past, that history.
Move goal posts for your own prejudcies as you like but waving strawmen around is of no interest. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What we're discussing here is about generalizing about all Muslims on the basis of some minority. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but yes, right now, the religion has a higher proportion of violent extremists than any other religion, both these statements can be true at the same time. Quote:
Christianity is a good example here: the Bible contains various God-endorsed genocides, and people once took it quite literally. But societies and theologies moved on, and although the book hasn't changed, we focus on the peaceful parts now, and try to derive some metaphor from the other bits. Islam has kind of gone the other way, being quite enlightened compared to Europe during Islam's golden age, now not only do many take the book literally, but a minority derive an evil message from it. But it's not really the book; you could find inspiration for the same acts from the bible, and in many parts of the world people still believe the bible tells them to murder gays, for example. Last edited by Mijin; 09-23-2017 at 11:00 AM. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Following the Battle of Tours (real event) the Ummayad caliphate stopped its advance (yes, really). After that, the Caliphate was beset by a large revolt in 739 (the Berber revolt) that eventually led to Morrocan independence. While that was happening, in the East, the Caliphate was attempting to expand into the Caucassus region, all the way to Samarkand (a real place, I've always wanted to go there), and eventually fell apart due to internal infighting. There's no question that the Ummayad Caliphate was ultimately destroyed by internal revolts but it's ridiculous to dismiss the Battle of Tours or its historical impact as a "fairy tale". |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I think he meant that the Islamic advances into France were not territorial ambitions. I've read that they were mainly looting and pillaging trips, and that at least part of the reason why the Moors were defeated is that individual soldiers wanted to retreat with the booty they had already secured. That's mentioned on Wikipedia, but there's no cite. It may be another of those romantic myths about the battle though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours Quote:
Last edited by glowacks; 09-23-2017 at 04:27 PM. |
|
|||
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Yes indeed.
The raids that are fictionalized and blown up into a great world historical battle however were not Ummayad advances, they were raids. So yes you have repeated some half understood histories and missed the point. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Well, in that case the "fairy tale" is on the Muslim side. From the Wiki page that glowacks linked - Quote:
There's a map on that Wiki page which can show you some ofthe cities mentioned. Autun, which the quote above shows was conquered in 725, is pretty much smack in the middle of France. Tours is northwest of Autun, in the Northren part of France. So the Ummayad forces had been occupying large swathes of French territory for years before the Battle of Tours. Martell may have caught the Ummayads when they were out on raids but to pretend like the Ummayad forces had no major presence in the region is absurd. The Frankish forces killed the Ummayad governor, Abudl Rhaman al Ghafiqi, and then called a halt to the fighting when daylight fell. The Ummayyad forces ran away in the night. In the aftermath of the Battle of Tours, the Ummayad army retreated beyond the French Pyranees. It might make some people feel better to pretend that the Muslim army ran all that way because they were just too cool to fight some stupid Frankish loser who wasn't really all that special anyway and who even cares, right? but ... come on. The Ummayad army came back in 735 and, after some back and forth, were kicked out for good by Charles' son Pepin. I would be willing to listen to arguments that the Battle of Tours, in and of itself, is not as decisive as legend makes it out to be. It certainly wasn't the end of the discussion. But to pretend like the Ummayads weren't hurting, afterwards, doesn't pass the smell test. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is the West kidding itself about the good intentions of Islam?
In order to answer that, one must first ask this question: what good intentions? We're talking about a religion that has a fundamental core that says convert everyone to Islam and kill anyone who doesn't. It's really hard to say that a religion like that has any kind of good intentions, not to mention ludicrous. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The fight against ignorance is going to be a long, long haul.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However a muslim 'side' or scholarship has not one thing to do with this or even my comment, purely based on the modern european and very Western historians. The same page: Quote:
If anyone should have a credit for no great Ummayad expansion reprise in the 800s, it is the Basque highlanders saying fuck you to both the Franks and the Muslims and fighting of any real control by both (the same ones who massacred Rolland but the later medieval Francphile propaganda gave the credit in chanson to muslims). But it does not as easily fit into the black and white narratives. The rest of the prejudiced tinged commentary insterting enormous strawmen of comments not at all made is not of any interest. Quote:
Last edited by Ramira; 09-24-2017 at 11:17 AM. |
|
|||
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I have been on this site for 9 years. Was a lurker for many years before that. I never thought I would see "Cecil" even entertain such a ridiculous question. Just the fact that the owners of the site felt the need to even discuss such a question and bestow it with a seriousness that it does not deserve, is horrifying.
I guess I should not be surprised; same week that some poster in all seriousness asks about an oncologist in a burqa. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
mc |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Islamic doctrine explicitly forbids forcible conversion of Christians, Jews, and "Sabeaens", I'm not sure if it's clearly known who that last group are. Other groups such as Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc. are not explicitly addressed, and there have been differences historically in how Muslim societies have treated them, but forcible conversion on the lines of "convert or die" has absolutely been the exception much more than the rule. You can see this by the fact that Hindu, Animist, and Zoroastrian minorities have existed in Muslim dominated environments for many centuries- often subject to certain legal disabilities, but certainly not wiped out by force. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
No non-Christians survived the Christian conquests in the europe - the pagans were converted by the penalty of the death. It is the same in the Americas, it is the same with the Reconquista, it is the same of all of the areas of the direct control where full rule could be imposed. of course there is the built in incentive system in the islamic legal rulings, for the non focus on the conversion for the improved tax base for the rulership in having the non muslim subjects, and the built in system of 'people of the book' and 'peoples of accords' (that have signed peace treaty to accept the Islamic rule) that are due protection if they pay taxes. as an economist, I am perhaps cynical in the analysis, but the economic incentives I always find to be useful for understanding the long-term trends and the long term incentives even if episodic rulers may deviate. Quote:
I do not attribute great morality, but rulers had the useful and the intersting economic incentives and a built in structure to use to rationalize and to legimitimate minorities. Unlike the eradicationist tendency of the european christianity. Last edited by Ramira; 09-24-2017 at 01:23 PM. Reason: added |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
There's a good point here which is that most religious repressions, historically, have been directed internally, towards dissidents who were promoting heretical doctrine. (E.g. Muslims suppressing Muslim heretics, Christians persecuting heretical Christians, Zoroastrians persecuting their own heretics, etc..)
|
|
|||
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There is the greater tradition of 'doing a deal.' Perhaps the anti-capitalist can be then critical of the transactional focus in Islamic traditions, showing the mercantile origin.... :^) The rigid intolerance in the doctrine and the practice of the Salafistes and in the most particular the Takfiri salafistes, it is really a kind of Innovation in a Roman Church kind of style which is ironic given their attitudes, but they are the ones importing alien habits in their faux purism. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Wow. A statement of fact is now "gross prejudice". How about a cite showing me to be wrong. Start with this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pa.../violence.aspx
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124494788 Quote:
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
At a minimum, Islamic doctrine draws on the Quran + the hadiths, and Christian doctrine (for most Christians historically, anyway) draws on the Bible plus early tradition. (A lot of the sources for Christian doctrine are extra-biblical, and while I don't know much about Islam my understanding is that a lot of the Islamic sources come from the hadiths as well). There's also the point to be made that most of the bloody material in the Bible is in the Old Testament, and there's a lot of internal debate within Christianity about the role the Old Testament plays today (or ever did), and the way in which it's to be read. Sufficie it to say the majority position historically was yes, the Old Testament is to be included as sacred scripture, but no, it's not to be read as a stand alone document but only in the light of the new. It seem to me that the *first three or four centuries of Christianity* were less militant than the first three or four centuries of Islam, although a sophisticated Muslim polemicist could and presumably would argue that's because Christianity mostly lacked political power until the mid fourth century, and thus didn't have either the ability or the responsibility for running a state and making tough decisions about what to do. It's always easier to be a pacifist when you're out of power than when you're in power. After St. Augustine wrote his very influential justifications for war, religious persecution and so forth in the fifth century, things changed, to put it mildly. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Considering that there have been times in history in which the Islamic world was generally less violent and more tolerant than the Christian world, and considering that Judaism, whose scripture (the Old Testament) is as violent or more so than any other scripture, is generally less associated with violence than either of the other Abrahamic religions, then I'm highly skeptical that the content of scripture has much if anything significant to do with the overall level of violence and tolerance in majority-one-religion societies. Rather, I think issues of geopolitics, history, and non-religious aspects of culture are far better explanations for these variations in associations with violence than specific doctrinal or textual characteristics of any of the religions.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
That's true, but I think it supports my point -- the explanation of variations in violence and tolerance is better explained by geopolitics (including who has the power), non-religious culture, and other factors, rather than text and doctrine of religious scripture.
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"There are radical extremists in every faith, and in groups without a religious figurehead." There is a big difference between "there are" being 0.5% and "there are" being 50%. If you cannot see this, then I weep for our future. We are talking about a MAJORITY of people in Pakistan OK will killing a woman accused of blasphemy without proof, and a sizable percentage (5%) willing to kill her with there own hands. There is a HUGE difference between a few loonies here and there, and the majority of the population. |
|
|||
#40
|
|||
|
|||
With over a billion followers of Islam, if that religion REALLY wanted to convert or kill all non-Muslim people, we'd have been dead already.
My point is that a subset of a religion doesn't speak for every member of that faith. The Westboro Baptist Church isn't representative of all of Christianity any more than radical Islam is representative of all Muslims. If you want to persist with this particular bogeyman, feel free. But don't pretend that it's those of us who can separate the radicals from the whole of Muslims are the ones with the problem. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
__________________
My friend Dan Canon is running for Congress! www.CanonForIndiana.com |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That sounds to me like it's something about the country and culture/society of Pakistan, and not something about Islam, that drives these sorts of attitudes. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
This seems to be pretty definitive. posted by logicpunk at 10:07 AM on December 20, 2007 [3 favorites] |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I strongly suspect that if Mecca had been invaded by the Christians the Muslims would have come up with the notion of a holy war first. Circumstances make holy wars, it's nothing inherent in Christianity.
|
|
|||
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|