AMERICAN Christians, no less. Scott Lively, for instance, was a busy little bee in Africa in the few years before those laws were made, and is currently facing crimes against humanity charges for that work.
Oh, stop being deliberately obtuse. Everybody AGREES that radical-extremist homophobic Islamist violence is directly related to the particular radical-extremist homophobic Islamist religious doctrines that the perpetrators of such violence espouse.
We just don’t buy the logically fallacious and bigoted attempts to use “Islam”, undifferentiated, as a synonym for such doctrines.
Really? When exactly were those periods?
From what I recall of the relevant history, Islam began in the cities of Medina and Mecca, and in the space of about 150 years expanded by conquest until the Caliphate ruled an enormous empire stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to central Asia and the Himalayas. In the following centuries, Islamic armies pushed aggressively against both the Byzantine Empire and Catholic Europe, and other borders in Africa and Asia.
One can point to the Crusades as an example when Catholic forces invaded the Muslim Middle East, but the Islamic kingdoms at the time were hardly peaceful towards either each other or anyone else. After the Crusades, when the Ottoman Empire took power, it resumed aggression against Europe, capturing Constantinople and leading to battles such as Lepanto and Vienna. At the same time, Islamic leaders conquered in other directions, such as the Mogul Empire.
I’m not trying to be snarky, but I’m just wondering as this sort of claim comes up in countless threads, when exactly was this time when the Islamic world lived peacefully with non-Muslim neighbors?
Scripture has an impact. And if the scripture is in any way different the impact it has is different. Now what portion of violence and lunacy can be directly attributed to which scripture is impossible.
I don’t think anybody’s claiming that there was ever a substantial period when the entire medieval/early modern Islamic world had zero warfare going on. After all, there was never a substantial period when the entire medieval/early modern Christian world, or the entire medieval/early modern East/Southeast/South Asian world, or the Central American world or the Polynesian world, etc., had zero warfare going on either.
What’s being claimed, I believe, is just the undisputed fact that there were periods within many Islamic cultures where tolerance of diversity and liberty of opinion were much greater than they were in many contemporary Christian cultures.
Here’s one– and there were others. There were many, many times through the Middle Ages in which Jews were far more welcome, and far safer, in certain parts of the Islamic world than anywhere in the Christian world.
Maybe scripture has an impact, but I haven’t seen a significant difference in the Quran vs the Bible – they both have many, many snippets that can be interpreted to promote violence, and they both have many, many snippets that can be interpreted to promote peace.
Further, the fact that there were (intermittent) times in which parts of the Islamic world were far more open and tolerant than the Christian world demonstrates that there are other factors that are probably far more significant than scripture.
I’ll also note that in America, Muslims are significantly more open to and tolerant of homosexuality than Mormons and evangelical Christians. I don’t believe this is due to scripture – do you? I think it’s due to other cultural and societal factors.
This is based on the survey posted upthread.
Tell me this, Mr. Pifflesworth, do you believe it is the case—or not the case—that the societies that have the worst attitudes toward gays tend to be Muslim?
Which is it?
And I’ll ask you to note that my statement here, just like the one you quoted and responded to, does not say that ALL the societies that treat gays most harshly are Muslim societies.
Ok then. In the Bible, God kills homosexual people - I see the cites quoted quite a bit, though I myself don’t follow with that. He personally kills quite a few people, not to mention the killing that he orders others to do. At one point he destroys almost the entire population of Earth. So what’s the significant difference?
The current societies that demonstrate the worst attitudes toward the LGBTQ community are ones currently indoctrinated by Salafist Islam–not by the “Muslim” boogeyman that many people who deliberately ignore the differences within the Islamic world create in their own minds–just as their predecessors invented a “communist” boogeyman, a “Romish” boogeyman, a “Yellow Peril” boogeyman, etc., refusing to bother to understand realities of the various groups that those ignorant xenophobes chose to hate.
Your understanding of history is remarkably shallow, and clearly determined by anti-Muslim propaganda.
The notion that the invasions of North Africa and Iberia were inspired by Islam is simply a propaganda device inherited from the Christians of the time who chose to use religion as campaign slogans. The Byzantine Empire was already overextended at the time that Islam moved out of the Arabian Peninsula. Just as the Western Roman Empire was assaulted by Vandals, Franks, Huns, Goths, etc., collapsing in its old age, the Eastern Roman Empire was attacked by Arabs and, later Berbers. The initial invasions were not accompanied by forced conversions, but the newly conquered peoples (seeing the lower taxes levied by the Caliphate among other things), tended to convert. The Invasion of France did not begin as an attempt by “Islam” to conquer “Christianity.” It began when a Muslim kingdom, already established north of the Pyrenees, got into a feud with a Muslim kingdom south of the Pyrenees and sought support from its Christian neighbors. When the Iberian forces defeated the Muslims of what is now Southern France and their Christian allies, they followed the age old practice of trying to expand their gains, at which time Charles Martel rounded up a bunch of Franks to resist. The Byzantine Empire was in conflict with the Caliphate and its successor states (eventually Turks) for hundreds of years because that is what empires have always done. Go read the histories of Egypt and the various empires in the Levant. Look at the Greeks and Persians, Romans and Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, etc. Look at the wars on the European continent–often involving self-declared empires.
The notion that it was “Islam” trying to conquer “Christianity” is nothing bu propaganda.
Meanwhile, once the lands outside the Arabian Peninsula came under the rule of Muslims, they tended to display the same sort of peace that could be found within other established empires. In addition, they periodically gave rise to great centers of education and civilization. (The recently derided-by-the-ignorant culture of Cordoba being an exceptionally bright light of learning and tolerance.)
The conquest of Northern India was another example of kingdoms wanting land–the sort of things that we already saw in Persia, Athens, Macedonia, Rome, and later pushed by Portugal, Spain, England, France, etc. However, once established in India, Muslim missionaries peacefully converted much of the Malaysian peninsula, the Indonesian archipelago, and the southern Philippine archipelago without conquest.
(Once an area became Muslim, of course, it was often subject to the human tendency to go have little wars, something seen in North Africa, the Levant, Persia, India, Iberia, etc. But many of the places that anti-Muslim propagandists typically claim to have been “conquered” by Islam were actually converted in the same way that most of Europe was converted to Christianity with a mixture of conquests and peaceful missionary work.)
The original claim by iiandyiiii I addressed was thus: “There have been long periods of history in which the Islamic world was far more peaceful, open, tolerant, and free than the Christian world.” I wanted to know when those long periods of time were.
You criticize “the notion that it was ‘Islam’ trying to conquer ‘Christianity’”. Instead you mention instances in which various kingdoms and empires, which happened to be Islamic, also happened to be expansionist and conquer their neighbors by force. You point out that this is generally what empires throughout history have done. That is true, but we’re still looking for those long periods in history when the Islamic world wanted to sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya with non-Muslim neighbors.
iiandyiiii linked to this article about the Golden Age of Jewish culture in Spain. But, aside from the fact that the article mentions that historians debate whether there was much tolerance for Jews in Muslim Spain during the supposed Golden age, that tells us about the experience of only one minority group in one nation within the Muslim world. Overall the record of tolerance for minority religious groups in the Islamic world was not good. Forced conversion was not the norm in the early centuries, but strongarming conquered people into conversion by restricting the legal rights and economic livelihood of non-Muslims often was.
Again, you can keep assailing the argument that all Muslims have always been bad all the time. No one is making that argument. The argument that is often made is that in general, throughout Islamic history, beliefs have driven an attitude that favors peaceful and legally equal co-existence with non-believers less often than other religions. Have their been exceptions? Yes, plenty.
What part of “various kingdoms and empires, which happened to be Islamic” is not the same as “the Islamic world” are you confused by?
CMC fnord!
I am not confused by any part.
As I noted (if lacking dates), and you ignored, there were several hundred years of peaceful missionary work in Southeast Asia, the Abbassid Caliphate, centered in Baghdad was internally peaceful (excepting the ongoing border disputes with the Byzantines) from the eighth through the twelfth centuries, the Fatimid Caliphate along the coast of North Africa was both mostly peaceful and generally tolerant during the tenth and eleventh centuries, there were two hundred years of scholarship and tolerance in Cordoba on the Iberian peninsula. During those periods, tolerance was sadly lacking in Christian Europe and peace simply never occurred for any length of time in Europe.
I would regard a serious lack of understanding to be confusion. YMMV
As long as in America Christians remain the majority power, they will always be a bigger threat to gays than the occasional Muslim. Religion itself seems to be the obstacle, so yeah, take a religion whose billion plus followers live in mostly third world countries and they’ll definitely be hostile to a progressive idea such as gay equality. But people’s fears of them should be directly proportional to the amount of power they are likely to wield, which in the US, is little to none
Consider the overwhelmingly oppressive blanket that Christian theology represents to the LGBT community in the United States. Now consider that Islamic theology was at the root of an obscenity that not even the most fundamentalist Christian congregation in the US has ever managed to perpetrate or even inspire in the entire sordid and malignant history of Christian oppression of homosexuals across the entire span of US history.
Silly assertion?