Zev,
Unfortunately, it gets to a point where everything that can be said is said. I honestly don’t think anything you can say to Brian can cause him to be less ignorant about this, and, unfortunately, arguing with him just seems to suggest that there’s anything he’s saying worth arguing about…it’s giving his views a respectability they don’t deserve. Meanwhile, all this stereotyping of Judaism that’s going on is getting in the way of those people who want to stereotype Islam. 
I have opened up a thread in the Pit that might be appropriate.
Collunsbury,
What you have mentioned about the Arab world’s contribution to scientific world is accurate. Note, however, that most of them are prior to Islam or, relatively speaking, just after adoption of Islam. One thing is for sure; the longer Islam has been around in a country, the less likely chances of any meaningful scientific discovery.
In response to your verbose comments on the genesis of Islamic revolution in Iran, I maintain that if it weren’t for the corrupt culture of Iran (which seems such a fertile host for the religion) outside forces would have no chance of manipulating its political system. CIA, et. al. attempted to manipulate Iran’s political system for their country’s gain for the simple reason they could.
So, which caused which? Iran’s corrupt culture, which allowed Islam to flourish, or did Islam somehow corrupted their culture? Since no Islamic country ever amounted to anything, I am betting it’s the second scenario.
Your argument about the state of women getting better in the Islamic world is mealy-mouthed. So, I am not going to counter. I will just say this: Token gestures does not make up for the oppression that has been going on for centuries. Electing one person prime minster, while literally millions are systematically being oppressed, isn’t evidence of open-mindedness.
With respect to freedom of speech, and culture being intolerant of criticism; again, only cultures where human rights and freedom of expression are severely repressed does it seem that Islam prospers. So, why is that these totalitarian cultures seem to have such affinity for Islam? Because they have the same belief system.
On a personal note, I say you have plenty of imagination to be a cheesemaker. So, go for it! And if you don’t like my threads, or think they belong else where, simply exercise your right and don’t read them.
Whatever Morpheous, whatever. A perusal of the historical literature with these kinds of standards, and framing the centuries correctly would equally show the longer Xtianity is around, the less likely there is “meaningful” scientific progress (whatever that means)… And so forth and so on in re just about anywhere.
As far as I’m concerned traditionally speaking religion has a conflicted relationship with innovation, but that probably reflects people’s conflicted relationships with change, like it and hate it. If one takes off the blinders, one might see that. I beleive CDHaven had apt comments on the prior page in re religion attempting to grapple with the last 2 centuries of change.
You got a beef, but it ain’t ratinally resolvable. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
I maintain this kind of analysis is assuming the conclusion and fallacious. We might say this about any system.
No Islamic country ever amounted to anything? You know man, getting rid of religious hypocrisy should not mean substituting it for blind and non-rational hatred. I’m not going to bother to correct you here, its clear its not worth it.
What do we say about the West? What about France, which only granted women full civil rights after WWII, and was damned reluctant to. At what point is change worth noting?
Frankly man, where have you actually been? I’m not in the business of whitewashing ignorant prejudices or discrimination, but your slip-shod comments are just as bad.
I have one response to this: Get your fucking head out of your fucking ass and read some history. This is the most ludicrously false statement I’ve read on this board since Peace was banned.
Try doing a little reading in some unbiased histories on the region, on Russia, on China, on Europe.
Man, this is just fucking sad.
Trying to be helpful oh ungrateful one.
See, Morph, I try to avoid it. But the sheer weight of the uninformed, ignorant, knee-jerk bigotry is so great that I just cannot get past the event horizon.
Ack!! I had hoped to stay out of this thread, since others were doing a perfectly fine job articulating my position. But I fear my self-control has eroded 
.
Morpheus: Egads, man! No Islamic cultures ever amounted to anything?! Compared to what!?!? Let’s take just two prominent examples:
1.)The Caliphate ( i.e. the original lineal Muhammed>Rashidun>Umayyad>Abbasid state ) maintained the Pax Islamica for over 300 years.
2.)The Ottoman state was founded at the opening of the 14th century, didn’t start to decline until the mid-16th, didn’t cease expanding until the late-17th, and didn’t become completely moribund until the latter half of the 18th. Even then there were continual ( mostly only partially succesful, but often spirited and serious ) attempts at reform right up until the state terminated.
If you’re trying to say that there are no Islamic equivalents to the United States today, well, yes. That’s obvious. But going from that to “no Islamic culture has ever amounted to anything” is a pretty enormous leap. By that standard you would have to call Ming China pretty unsuccessful as well :rolleyes: . The reasons why Western Europe ( and much later, Japan, and even more recently, a very few other Asian nations ) and it’s extensions have been more successful in recent history than Islamic countries is a complex and controversial topic. One that I believe has been argued here before ( you might check the archives ). In my opinion it has as much to do with luck, timing, and geography as anything else. But there are quite a few “something elses”. Religion may be one of them in certain limited circumstances.
But Islam has historically been neither anti-intellectual, nor anti-progress. Certainly no more so ( and perhaps rather less at times ) than Christianity. Just take a look at the religious wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation that undoubtedly set Central Europe and Iberia back quite a bit.
And if you’re looking for later examples of Islamic accomplishments, how about, just for instance, some of the great architectural wonders of the Islamic world. Like the Alhambra of Moorish Spain from the 14/15th centuries. Or at the other end of the Islamic sphere, the Taj Mahal of Mughal India. Constructed in the the mid-17th century, over 1,000 after the founding of Islam. And those are just two of the more famous of hundreds of examples. Just recently I was looking at photos of the interior of a gorgeous mosque in Isfahan, Iran, from the Safavid period ( 16th-18th centuries ).
At any rate, every semi-stable period in every Islamic society in history has brought a flowering of some aspect of culture, whether it be in literature, art, music, architecture, philosophy, or some other discipline. Heck, even even one of the worst periods in Ottoman history brought a lot of new varieties of tulips into being 
. And no, these periods of stability were not necesarily associated with the most repressive regimes. Sometimes they were, mostly not. Some very pious and very powerful Abbasid Caliphs were major patrons of the sciences.
As to corruption in Iran ( and other Islamic states ) - Corruption is inherent to humanity, not Islam. Do you really want me to try to count how many people I know that have been pulled over by Chicago cops ( “Rollers” ) on bogus traffic violations just so that they can solicit bribes? I’d run out of fingers and toes. In the seventies it was standard to keep a 20 clipped to the inside of your wallet for just such an eventuality.
Pahlavi Iran was hopelessly corrupt because they inherited a hopelessly feudal society and system of governance from the old Qajar dynasty. The Qajar regime was so corrupt because they were a dynasty that had seized power in a chaotic situation and based on their military assets that sprang not from the (largely) sedentary Persian populace, but rather from their hereditary leadership of a pastoral, tribal, Turcoman confederacy. They WERE ignorant barbarians ( with a tenuous and narrow power base ) and ran the country as such. And they never got a chance to graduate out of that position due to both the poverty of Iran at the time they took power and the continuing poverty caused by a series of lost wars with the Russians in the Caucasus AND, most importantly, the squeeze of enormously disadvantageous economic treaties with the European powers ( something that was strangling the Ottoman state at the same time ). In time they became essentially a basketcase, technically autonomous, but in actuality a puppet regime propped up by Britain and Russia who divided the country into political spheres of influence. The establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty was essentially a coup that stabbed in the back the genuinely popular revolt that had ousted the Qajars. If you want I can dig out my notes and go into more detail. ( Quick quiz - The second Soviet Socialist Republic to be created was established where? You guessed it! Northern Iran! 
).
Totalitarianism and Islam? No worse than Buddhist/Shinto Japan or Orthodox Christian Russia, just to mention two.
Anywho I’m getting a little rambly, so I’ll just wind it up with this - I am not trying to offer a blanket defense of Islam. Heck, personally, I’m an atheist. And I acknowledge that it has been the cause of many egregious things over the millenia. But so has every other religion ( and, yes, Buddhism is not exempt ). And Islam, like every other religion, has also been the origin of a lot of good. At any rate, as has been said by a number of other people on this thread, it is patently unfair to judge the entire religion by the actions of an extreme minority. It is even less fair to judge it based on an imperfect understanding of history.
Oh, and just to be a cheerleader ( and to make up for scaring him with parasite talk 
) - What Collounsbury said .
- Tamerlane
Hmmm…That comment about the Abbasid Caliphs was a little unclear. The Caliphs I’m thinking about were rather less repressive than some others in terms of how they treated theologic opponents and in their more open embrace of other cultures ( compared to the more arabo-centric rule of most of the Syrian Umayyads, for example ).
One can make the argument that more extreme, fundamentalist Islamic regimes were and are less open to innovation, scientific or otherwise, than there more liberal ( and less oppressive ) brethren. Thus India flourished under liberal, syncretic Akbar, and stagnated under strict, orthodox Alamgir ( Auranganzeb ). Moorish Spain flourished under the immediate successor states to the Spanish Umayyads and stagnated culturally under the harsh, fundamentalist rule of the al-Murabitun ( Almoravids ) and al-Muwahiddun ( Almohades ). Of course, Calvinist Scotland probably wasn’t a source of cultural efflorescense, either.
But the above examples just further point out that fanaticism ( such as in the case of the Taliban ), is the real problem. Not Islam, per se. And those examples are also further illustrations of why Morpheous’ ( sorry about misspelling your name earlier, by the way ) comment about science thriving only under the most repressive Islamic regimes, is off-base.
- Tamerlane
Well, you haven’t really said anything here that matters very much. Yes, no doubt that is some exaggeration there, Yes, it was a complex situation, as are all such situations. But nothing you’ve said here changes the fact that the Muslims who conquered India made deliberate, systematic attempts to stamp out both Hinduism and Buddhism.
You see, what happened on the sub-continent of India was very similar to what happened in the New World. In Mexico and South America, the invading Christians uprooted the native pagan religions and replaced it with Christianity. No, they hadn’t come simply to save the natives’ souls. They were after money and power, and they didn’t care who got hurt. But it would be a huge mistake to assume that they were merely cynical hypocrites when they squeezed out paganism and replaced it with Christianity—they really did believe they were doing God’s work. The Muslims who invaded India were similarly motivated. Yes, they were after money and power, and while the first few invasions were no more than raids, later invaders came to conquer and rule. And just like the Christians in Latin America, they believed they were on the side of the angels, and they set out to destroy the native religions. The only difference was that the Conquistadors and their compadres were more successful. Yes, when things settled down and the Muslim conquerors had a firm grip on power, they lightened up a great deal. But none of that changes the fact that Muslims had earlier believed themselves to have every moral right to burn Hindus alive in their own temples, to slaughter entire cities when they refused to convert, to kill Hindu and Buddhist priests on sight, and to destroy temples and shrines by the tens of thousands.
No matter how you look at it, it still boiled down to Muslim versus pagan. And Muslims of that age (and many in our own) very much believed they had not only a right but a duty to stamp out “idolatry.”
We’ve been through this before, and I gave up on you in exasperation. Why are you so determined to whitewash Islamic imperialism?
But it still pretty much boils down to Muslim versus non-Muslim. And many of the Muslims quite clearly believe they have the right to kill and/or enslave the Christians and pagans and to force Islamic law on non-Muslims. Saying “It’s not that simple” is often an attempt to cloud real issues, as when neo-Confederates claim that the American civil war “wasn’t about slavery, it was about a lot of other things.”
Gee, I guess the professor who taught that history course I took in college just didn’t know what she was talking about. I hope you won’t mind if I give more weight to her opinion than to yours?
Stooopid insomnia . mutter, grumble…
Lonesome Polecat: Despite my cheerleading for Collounsbury earlier in regards to his response to Morpheous, I’m going to say that I actually agree with you, re:India. Of course, I don’t particularly disagree with Collounsbury, either. His outline is, in a broad way, roughly correct. But you are right that Muslims saw Hindus and Buddhists ( of which there were actually very few in India by the time Islam arrived ) very differently from the “Peoples of the Book”. Persecution of Hindus tended to wax and wane, depending on the orthodoxy of particular rulers.
Thus, for example, we have the Sultan of Delhi, Firuz Tughluq ( 1351-1388 ), who in one sense was quite enlightened and far-thinking. He abolished torture and greatly reduced the corps of secret police, while at the same time promoting irrigation projects and other civil works ( he’s credited with constructing over 50 dams and reservoirs, not too mention over 100 hospitals ). But in religious terms he was VERY orthodox, persecuting Hindus generally and imposing the jizya on the Brahman class, who had generally been exempt under his predessors.
Another interesting Sultan was Sikander Lodi ( 1489-1517 ) who wrote poetry, patronized the arts and sciences ( some important compilations on music and medicine were made with his encouragement ), and generally encouraged a lively intellectual discourse at his court. This cultural blossoming may have ( probably did ) indirectly helped prompt the philosophical/theological impulses that led to the foundation of several important Hindu/Islam syncretisms in his lifetime, not the least of which was the Sikh faith. But despite having a Hindu mother and having fallen in love with a Hindu princess early in life ( or perhaps because of those reasons ) he was personally quite orthodox and prone to periodic temple razings.
Of course the fact that some Muslim rulers DID do such things as periodically lift or place in abeyance the jizya ( Akbar banned it altogether ) and marry prominent Hindus, shows just how complex the situation could be. But then, you didn’t deny this .
Now I was considering disagreeing with you about the pagan issue, but I reconsidered. You’re probably correct here, as well . The generally ethnic, non-proselytizing, and flexible faiths of various pagan peoples generally didn’t lend itself to religiously inspired persecution. But while they were tolerant in religious terms, let’s make it clear that they weren’t tolerant in other respects. The pagan Mongol Khan or Ptolemaic ( Lagid ) Pharaoh that wouldn’t have given a flying fuck what god the bulk of their subjects believed in, would have been quite horrified at the concept of abolishing torture . Not that you are making claims to the contrary, but I wanted to make that point. Pagans are not inherently virtuous.
Also in terms of monotheism, it can get complicated. There were moments of Zoroastrian ( which despite its dualistic overtones, is essentially a monotheistic religion ) repression. But it was almost always internal. Zoroastrianism was not a proselytizing religion, but rather an ethnic one. Similar things could be said for Judaism. Or even early Islam, which was originally an ethnic religion as well.
But I agree - Judeo-Christian based religions have tended to be a bit more persecutorial than most ( or all ) others. But EVERY religion has had its bad ( and good ) moments.
- Tamerlane
:rolleyes:
And what about when those of us who aren’t “neo-Confederates” claim that the Civil War just might have involved more than slavery, hmmm?
Andros: Lordy! We’re not going to hijack this thread that far afield are we ? ( said the guy who thinks slavery was the root cause of the Civil War ).
Lonesome Polecat: Reading Andros’ post I just thought of someplace where we don’t agree . At least seemingly in degree.
And many of the Muslims quite clearly believe they have the right to kill and/or enslave the Christians and pagans and to force Islamic Law on non-Muslims.
Yep. And many don’t. I would submit that probably most don’t. The Sudanese government is a harsh, repressive, and yes, fundamentalist regime. But everything I have read backs Collounsbury’s assertion that religion is not the primary motivating factor in this struggle. It’s just an excuse that’s sometimes trotted out. And just because the Sudanese junta occasionally uses half-baked appeals to religious authority to attempt to justify their brutality, does not necessarily make Islam as a religion complicit in the violence there. Just like the Taliban’s appeal to the Koran to justify THEIR repulsive behavior, doesn’t necessarily make Islam complicit in their crimes, either.
One can twist any religious philosophy ( or pretty much any philosophy ) to justify just about any vile position you might happen to want to take. As a for instance, I give you Buddhist assassins in medieval Japan. When that happens it doesn’t always mean the philosophy as a whole is completely invalidated.
You’re right that the phrase, “It isn’t that simple”, can sometimes be obsfucatory. But it’s also often correct. And in this case - It ISN’T that simple.
- Tamerlane
My point. In religion, in politics, and in love, nothing is simple. IMO, anyone who claims otherwise is feeding me a line.
As a Catholic, I would guess the blank stare would probably come from having never heard of the Cult of Thecla. What is it? **
[/QUOTE]
Thecla was a female Christian teacher, that toured around with Paul. She was a strong, dynamic, virtuious woman. She was also very outspoken & forthright.
The Catholic Church is quite obsessed with the veneration of Mary, and SOOOOO, stories of Thecla were supressed from the Catholic bible. Other Christian religions still feature Thecla as a woman to be admired and emulated. As far as the Catholic religion is concerned, however, Mary is the figure that good, pious women should strive to be like, which doesn’t leave room for a outspoken, strong-willed kinda gal like Thecla.
Just a bit of religious trivia…
Al.
Oh. You mean the St. Thelca of Iconium mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Acts of Paul and Thelca (c. 180 AD?)weren’t circulated in Western Christiandom as much as they were in the West – partly due no doubt to Diocletian’s fondness for burning Christian books, which motivated the early Roman Church to decide what book were worth dying for anyway. There are at least 70 gospels and epistles and apocalypses and action narratives not in the Roman Canon, not all extant – I doubt there was some mysogynist conspiracy to keep this book out.
But, read it for yourself. It does give an interesting insight into Paul’s preaching.
oops… that should read: as much as they were in the East.
On this point I have to disagree - unfortunatly the Catholic church is riddled with mysogynist conspiracys, but then again, so are all the other monothiestic religions. Not that the religions are bad or mysogynist, unfortunatly, sometimes their leaders are.
Anyhow, this is totally off topic, so I will leave it be.
Al.
I objected to the use of genocide and I will continue to do so. Repress the religions, sure. Ain’t genocide.
I have not at all, your distortions aside. I’ve stuck to the story which strikes me as best supported by the available evidence in a reasonable reading thereof. Your inflammatory language aside.
No, it does not. I believe Tamerlane’s follow up makes the point adequately.
Well, OK – perhaps today it has some mysogynist tendacies in the construction of their hierarchy. I don’t think we can project that back to when the canon was formed – nor did I notice anything particularly unique in Thelca’s story versus those of any other female Catholic saint. If you get blank looks – well, there are just way too many saints of both sexes for people to keep track of. I can offer the Free Spirits, which lacks any hierarchy, as a sect of Christianity which isn’t mysogynistic, and yet is monotheistic.
As a learned professor at HOGWARTS I believe i should
state some views:
Here are my opinions on the subject:
Taleban:
They’re screwed up! Some of their action such as banning female education are not only fundamentalistic but downright ANTI-ISLAM. The Quran tells us to seek knowledge as a top priority. It specifically gives the reference of going to china for education if need be…in those times china was certainly not a muslim country but it was technologically advanced and far off, hence the emphasis on importance of education and it also specifically states the importance of female education.
Those idiots destroyed all TV sets stating them as unislamic and similar acts.
The statues affair was very saddening too. Being Muslims the taleban should have had more sense but frankly speaking my observation was that it might be more of a diversional strategy to kinda divert people from osama bin laden or to send the message that the taleban rule!!!
Women:
Well the covering is really not required in that sense. I’ve read the Quran and the instruction for women is to be decent and not arouse males as in you know…to avoid mishaps such as rape etc. and the other instruction is for prayers where they have to be covered. Also it is forbidden for women to be indecent i.e vulgar…same for men too.
The problem really is that since men rule the world…the decency factor is based on male views and basically women wear what the men instruct them to. If you ever visit the tribal areas around afghanistan and Pakistan or the middle east which have a similar culture you’ll realize that it has more to do with the culture than religion. i.e it has become the culture. Also in places such as Pakistan for instance you can go to islamabad,lahore and karachi and see girls wearing jeans etc. while you go a couple hundred kilometres away and the only females you’ll see will be covered from head to foot. Its the same in many middle east places too e.g Dubai etc.
About women…before islam was introduced fathers in arabia used to bury their daughters alive…Islam really brought about a change in peoples attitudes…how it was interpreted later on is really another matter altogether.
strictness and Jihad in Islam
well islam is not really that strict. Its the people who make it that way. Its really more about self discovery.
The Quran it tells People to discover the truth by thinking and pondering over the world. Its about discovering for yourself and finding out on your own that Allah exists and that Islam is the religion to follow before you can really follow it. Unless you believe you cannot really follow and for believing you must convince yourself which is only really possible by discovering for yourself and then sharing this with others. Its not really about war and fighting and killing people unless they become muslims.
Jihad is only for cases of oppression. If you’re being oppressed then first of all you try to work out a solution by dialogue if that doesn’t work and the oppression continues then you have a right to strike back. It must be emphasized that Jihad is striking back…not causing the oppression of some other people. Its because of the high status of people who fight and die in these holy wars that Jihad has really become an attraction…whether its real Jihad or not.
A small story:
During the times of the caliph Omer bin khitab There was a war between the muslim empire and jews(if i can remember) of another state.
That war was won by the muslims without any bloodshedbecause when the muslims were outside the city the leaders of the opposition were pondering over whether to fight or not so after being amazed at the string of muslim victories in other battles the scholars wanted to learn more about this mystical race. Therefore they sent word to the Muslim commander to call their leader for dialogue. The caliph was summoned from mecca.
So the caliph set off…on his camel with his servant walking on foot beside him. The caliph being a humble and pious person made the servant ride half the way on the camel since they only had set off with one camel. Hence the agreement was that they would take turns on the camel.
When they reached the great city where a procession of leaders and townsfolk and the muslim commander were waiting in a huge procession, it was the servants turn to ride so they rode in with the caliph holding the reins. Everyone thought that the servant was the caliph while the muslim commander went to greet the caliph who was holding the reins of the camel.
When the religious scholars of that city saw this…they decided to surrender immediately…They told their soldiers to surrender…the reason being that their texts contained a prediction that the city would be conquered by he who walks while his servant rides…Simply amazing and surprisingly a historic fact.
This was something I picked up in my ethics class…its like we are studying all the major religions…I was really impressed by this story…dunno if i was right to include it here or not
quote by Mr. Bunnyhurt:
(congratulations on being misunderstood by your own free will).
Does anyone else think that is about the funniest thing they have ever heard? (That is except when someone snorts when they are laughing)
I might even put it in my sig-line. [newcomer question]Do I gotta ask permission first?[/newcomer question]
Probably – although I have been give free reign to quote Brian for my sig anytime.
JOY