Islam is a barbaric religion

Great Debates
101

Damn it, I am now no longer the only Abe on this board! :cool:

Morpheus, others have pointed out that you should not confuse culture with religion. If you had read the Koran you would understand what I mean. Sure, Islam has a bad rep thanks to assholes like the Taleban, but before you assume anything else on the topic, read the Koran. I am not saying this to convert you (I am agnostic-atheist and no fan of any religion), but I think that it will give you a better idea on the topic. The Koran is, overall, a very gentle work. Some of the men who practise Islam are not, but do not confuse the idiocy of men with the value of particular religions.

As for countries flourishing under Islam–think about literacy rates all over the world, in the 7th and 8th centuries, and beyond. Pretty dismal. But wherever in the world Islam took root, children were taught reading and writing --formerly the domain of scholars, nobles, and merchants-- so that they might understand, memorize, and reproduce the Koran. This not only raised literacy rates, but had interesting side effects such as producing a large number of great poets, scientists, politicians, philosophers, etc. Go to Amazon and buy any book on the topic “tales of the Sufis” to see what I mean for didactic poetry and tales. Or look up the works of Ibn Sina, known in Latin as Avicenna, for examples of scientific work.

On the topic of women, I usually see Mohammed as a remarkable social engineer who turned a tribal system into an empire. In his time, baby girls were abandoned in the wilderness because poor parents were not willing to bear the costs that young women entailed (dowry, etc.). Mohammed came in and put an immediate stop to this practice. He once said, “heaven is at the feet of your mother”. He instituted modest dress codes for both sexes to minimize sexual tension, in order to enable men and women to exist side by side without the urge to steal or rape a vulnerable wife/daughter. My belief is that this was a good thing in the past, but it has been perverted in this day and age in some countries. While Mohammed sought to protect women, who were at high risk not just from the men they lived with but also from raiding tribes, some of today’s men are actively repressing women for their own reasons or cultures, not the reasons and culture of Islam.

Just consider the contributions made to the first wave of feminism in Egypt alone in the 19th century! (see http://holysmoke.org/fem/fem0035.htm). And consider that women in many Islamic parts of the world were able to own land and enjoy similar rights long before these rights were granted to many European counterparts!

You are the victim of misinformation. There is nothing in Islam that makes it a vicious religion. Keep in mind that Islam is quite young for a religion, not even 1.5 thousand years old. What was the situation with, e.g., Christianity in 500-700 years ago? Not ideal by any means, and far more contradictory and manipulative than Islam has ever been.

I will agree with you that Islam is sometimes used as a front for the oppression of women, the destruction of monuments, and other foolishness, but that is by no means grounds to say that Islam itself is a vicious religion. Some of its followers, yes; but you get that across all religions, not just Islam.

102

According to the Britannica, the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg defined genocide “as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, © deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Emphasis added.

103

I am well aware of the tribunal, and am equally aware of the inappropriateness of ripping such definitions out of their historical context and applying them ahistorically back through history. Especially given the nature of the “evidence”. An exercise is propaganda, not scholarship.

104

'Scuse me. In the post to which I was replying, you said that the extermination of a religion is not genocidal. I showed that you were wrong. Your comments in this post do nothing to address the point I was making.

As for being “ahistorical” (a term you apparently coined yourself), it’s one thing to say that we ought to approach historical events with scholarly objectivity if we wish to understand them properly, and another thing entirely to say that we ought not to have any moral attitude or view of historical events whatsoever. You seem to be saying the latter, and again, you’re wrong.

105

On Sudan, it looks like I’m gonna hafta reverse course. After spending a couple of hours researching it on the Net, it appears that religion is not as important in that conflict as I’d thought. Damn, I hate it when I have to admit I’ve been wrong. Fortunately, I’m not often wrong. :smiley:

106

As I recall, my objection was to your original language in re comparision to Hitlerian or Stalinist “genocidal” assaults. I seconded the objection in indicating I felt an accurate description was not extermination (in the sense of genocide) but repression.

Hardly. Perhaps you should expand your reading.

My, my what virulence. My position is that one should approach subjects with scholarly objectivity and avoid inappropriate language which distort the analysis.

Insofar as I view the use of the term genocide in the connection of the Islamic conquests to be largely inflamatory, inadequately supported by the evidence and carrying inaccurate and ahistorical implications, I feel comfortable with my criticisms.

However, I am glad to see that you have corrected yourself in re Sudan.

107

No, the problem is that you are denying that the Muslim invaders of India deliberately conducted campaigns of extermination against the Hindus and Buddhists of India. And extermination is exactly what they intended and attempted to carry out, not mere “repression.”

I read a good deal and have an excellent vocabulary. I dare say my command of the English language and my fund of general knowledge are at least the equal of yours. Try not to be snide, Coll. It makes you look petty and malicious.

Well, then, what’s your problem? The word “genocide” perfectly fits what the Muslims tried to do to the native religions of India. The use of that word is entirely appropriate.

Well, the problems there are that the use of the word “genocide” is not in itself inflammatory, and the evidence clearly shows that the Muslim conquerors of India obviously intended to wipe out Hinduism and Buddhism, not merely repress them.

You, on the other hand, refuse to correct yourself in re the Muslim invasions of India.

You are simply wrong, Coll. Accept it. Get over it. Move on.

108

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. 1992, Houghton Mifflin Company.

109

Lonesome Polecat: I think the problem here, at least for me, is the definition of genocide. The one given by Webster’s Unabridged is, the systematic killing or extermination of a whole people or nation. That’s the definition I, and I think most people, think of when we use the term. Under that definition what happened in India was not, strictly speaking, genocide.

I agree ( But I’ll reiterate the point that there were precious few Buddhists in India by the time Islam appeared on the scene ). Although the situation became very complex very quickly, with many, many exceptions made and periods of lesser and greater religious tolerance, in theory at least the Islamic rulers in India wished to stamp out Hinduism ( and Buddhism ). But that’s not the same as saying they wised to stamp out Hindus. Not even the most fervent Muslims, in fact least of all the most fervent Muslims, wished to exterminate the entire Hindu population and replace them with imported Muslims. They wanted to convert the Hindus. To that means they applied a variety of pressures both economic ( special taxes ), political ( exclusion from the seats of administration ), legal ( forbidding certain ceremonies amd public observancs ), social ( evangelizing - frankly the most successful method ), and destructive ( razing of temples mostly ). But they didn’t tend to institute pogroms of mass extermination against the populace at large. Most of the slaughter that took place, was a byproduct of military action and was a feature of all cultures at that time.

Now if we take the Nuremburg definition it becomes slightly hazier. There was certainly intent to destroy a religious group. But it was by suppressing the religion, not destroying the group. I’m pretty sure ( but perhaps I’m wrong ) that the Nuremburg definition of genocide alludes to the physical destruction of a group for religious reasons. Not the attempted destruction of a religious culture ( which is certainly heinous in of itself ).

I don’t think it is whitewashing events in India to say that the Muslims were actively seeking to destroy Hinduism as a religious edifice and used many unpleasant means to that end, including, at times, terror. But IMHO the term genocide doesn’t fit. And yes I do think it is slightly inflammatory, because it doesn’t convey the genuine ( however horribly misguided and miserably expressed ) concern of many Muslims over the perceived damnation of the “pagan” Hindus. The Muslims were NOT the moral equivalent of the Nazis.

Just my $.02 :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
110

Well, it hardly matters as Tamerlane and Andros have adequately made my points for me.

I therefor remain comfortable in my initial analysis and reject the assertion that I have “whitewashed” anything. You may prefer a different analysis, but I continue to see it as ahistorical.