Only read the first half page, so forgive me if this is repeated.
The “defenders” on this thread seem to be implying that people are criticizing Islam whenever it’s followers do something violent - ie some guy commiting murder because he was pissed off, and coincidentally was muslim, means Islam is evil.
That’s distorting the idea being presented here, enough to even really be attacking a straw man. They’re obviously not suggesting Islam is to blame for random violence commited by Muslims - but that these Muslims are doing it IN THE NAME OF Islam, and because of their belief in Islam.
Someone might’ve mentioned this point already, but the first half page I read was people replying to an argument that wasn’t made - that people are doing random non-Islam related things and then Islam was taking the blame.
If you’re going to put words in my mouth, then simply refrain from saying anything.
I note that according to your link, it is not a production of the Egyptian broadcasting company, but a privately produced work that they are allowing to be broadcast–pretty much the point I made earlier. I also noted that if there is U.S. funding that has been used to further the broadcast, the U.S. government should exert their efforts to kill it.
However, the source of the broadcast seems to be a private political group that wants to continue to inflame anti-Jewish feeling rather than some “Islam must conquer the world” religious group that is representative of Muslim belief–the topic of this thread.
Having re-read the whole first page just now, I would say that you have exactly reversed the positions. Hail ants began with a straightforward condemnation of Islam and Damascene pointed out the difference between an adherent doing something and the religion prompting something.
I have no great faith in the phrase “religion of peace” because it tries to place a large and complex series of beliefs into a cute little box with only a single meaning. However, the defenders in this thread have not resorted to trying to claim that Islam is a “religion of peace.” In fact, several people have already noted that people can use religion to “whip up the masses” (see my post about three up). In contrast, Hail ants, banjoboy, Kalt (who, in his defense, hates everyone), Mambo, and, to a lesser extent, Lobsang all held to “it is Islam that is the problem” while the folks on the other side pointed to the wide range of experiences and phenomena associated with Islam–and no one claimed that Islam was a religion of peace (although banjoboy made the aburd claim that Christianity is).
As I said earlier, it doesn’t really matter what group paid for the series, it’s the fact that it’s on Egyptian TV to start with. Why are you so unwilling to criticize those Islamists who happen to be ignorant, bigoted, anti-Semitic a-holes of the 1st degree? Up to and including the Egyptian government?
I guess “continuing to inflame anti-Jewish feeling” is ok in your book?
No, it’s not “OK.” However, when you can point to your posts condemning the people who have allowed Ann Coulter to spew her hatred all over the media, you can come back and claim that your opposition to free speech in other countries is not hypocritical.
I think the “Protocols” broadcast is hateful and should never have been made.
I think the U.S. government should have no part in funding it.
Those are separate issues from whether “Islam is hateful” or “Islam is prompting people to be hateful,” (the topics of this thread).
Ethiopia (a historically Christian Empire) had one rule when they invaded: Die or be assimulated.
I won’t argue with to about Sudan, but in Ethiopia and Eritrea (then Ethiopia too) the Coptic Christian Church have ALWAYS been in power, and often did a lot of unjustices to all the Muslim, Fashala, or whatever minorities. Some which includes invasion, murder, and the selling off the young to salvary (The Ethiopian empire exported a vast amount of salves from newly captured Muslum territories. Territories which now contain more then 70% of the current size of Ethiopia).
Ethiopia has always been a Christian empire with the Coptic Chruch frimly in power, even to this day.
Oh, I agree. I was originally going to post some additional commentary on that subject, but left it out. But it is certainly true that those states that are promoting the Naqshbandiyya are doing so purely in their own selfish interests, because they are considered less of an ideological ( and direct ) threat to their dictatorial or semi-dictatorial regimes than the Islamists. And the way they are going about it is typical of heavy-handed repressive regimes.
I don’t disagree. The situations are highly variable enough that generalizing must be taken with a grain of salt. But Islam certainly does not consider all faiths equal and the end result of such parochialism has generally been discrimination . Said discrimination may be very mild on occasion ( and very severe on others ), and usually both overt and subtle in different facets, but certainly historically it has almost always been there. The modern situation is more complex, of course.
Theologically all Judeo-Christian religions discriminate at some level, by the very nature.
True ( in part, there really wasn’t a big push for conversion at first ), but then poll taxes ( which the jizya was by definition ) as well as land taxes were the rule in these areas before the Arab conquest as well. For the most part the Arabs simply adopted pre-existing Byzantine and Sassanian tax systems to their own use. Generally speaking at all levels land taxes were always the major imposition and generator of revenue. The original Arab conquerers had been exempt from all taxes except the sadaqat or Muslim alms tax ( a specific poll tax levied on Muslims, generally not to onerous ). However this was in an atmosphere of a tiny group of conquerers subsisting off a much larger group of conquered. As conversion became more widespread, this proved an untenable situation and by the time of Umar II ( 717-720 ), Muslims were responsible for paying land tax as well. So we have Muslims paying a combination of land tax plus sadaqat and non-Muslims paying land tax plus jizya ( note that this is a vast over simplification ). The tax-burden was almost always higher for non-Muslims than Muslims ( though local exceptions can be found, due to special exemptions in certain areas for whatever reason ), but the absolute difference between the two fluctuated widely and was increasingly minimized for the simple economic reason that the state had to deal with the problem of shrinking revenue when people converted to Islam.
The level of taxation varied widely and was dependant on a whole variety of factors. Egypt after the conquest was particularly exploitive, with tax-inspired revolts in 697, 712, and 725-726. But then Egypt had been (mis-) treated a cash-cow and had been throughout the Roman and Byzantine period.
*The Census continued for the next several centuries while the burdensome tax system became so oppressive that it often ruined town’s economies adding to the unrest in the province that was to plague every emperor after Augustus. The situation that developed despite attempts at reform transformed Egypt into a land of anarchy as:
All through the centuries of Roman rule men continued to flee their homes when their fiscal burden was increased by the last straw. And the government continued to reap the whirlwind of its own sowing: loss of manpower, decline in revenues, and unremitting military alert against the roving robber bands that the fugitives swelled (Lewis, Life 184).
Augustus upon his victory at Actium had been welcomed by the Egyptian people as their savior from the tyrannical rule of Antony and Cleopatra (Dio Roman History 51.15). He had intended to preserve the Ptolemaic administrative system with only minor modifications while extracting a maximum revenue in cash and kind for Rome. He instead initiated an economic policy that led to strife and turmoil in Egypt for the next three hundred years. *
From here: http://www.skidmore.edu/~j_simato/Tax%20Policy.htm
In contrast, Iraq, severely taxed under the Sassanians and recently war-ravaged, was given a measure of tax relief, with numerous tax concessions as the economy there was rebuilt. In general after the initial conquests we see a economic decline in Egypt ( massive taxation ), Syria ( cut off from Anatolian markets, Bedouin migration into north ), and Mesopotamia ( distinct from Iraq in this context - mostly result of spread of Bedouin pastoralism ). Whereas we see an economic boom in Iran and to a lesser extent Iraq.
As for the specific burden of the jizya - That too, varied pretty widely. So as to the Ottoman conquests in Greece: The resentment of Greek Orthodox Christians against existing Catholic regimes helped the Ottomans, under whose government non-Muslims prospered. It is true, that in accordance with Islamic law, both Christian and Jews were liable for a special head tax ( cizye ). Nevertheless, not only did a steep reduction in tithes and the abolition of the corvee more than offset this imposition, but also a particularly moderate reading of Islamic principles ameliorated even such religiously obligatory levies, which at first were often collected from communities as an undervalued lump sum ( maktu ). From The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe by Daniel Goffman ( 2002, Cambridge University Press ).
Not that I am a blanket defence of the practice by the way - As a matter of principle it’s definitely a distasteful and discriminatory facet of Islam in my mind. But from a purely economic point of view, the level to which it was a burden was highly variable. I will say that re:Egypt, I think you have a very good case, particularly in certain periods, for onerous taxation and ( especially from the 10th century on ) considerable oppression of the Copts.
Actually, as has been argued exhaustively in these various threads, that is not at all clear. Unfortunately, as with most religions, Islamic scripture can be interpreted many ways ( which is why these quotation contests rarely yield consensus ), depending on the context of both the text and those analyzing it. But I woulds submit that that in the end the simple fact is most Muslims appear to disagree with your interpretation.
Once again, this is absolutely false, as has been pointed out to you in detail before. There is no such unambiguous reading and not even Osama bin Laden takes this tact. You can continue to consider Muslims that don’t believe this non-Muslims if you like. But as that would seem to include the vast, vast majority of Muslims today, I’m afraid you’ve got a real problem with defining what a Muslim is in any practical fashion.
Disgustingly ignorant anti-Semitism is what I would call it. At least one Egyptian paper ( group? ) had the courage to criticize it. But unfortunately thanks to decades of self-serving propaganda, a lot of people in that region believe that shit. However, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, religion is not necessary for this mix - Tribalism is sufficient. Certain Islamic religious passages can be and are interpreted as fanning the fire of anti-Jewish sentiment in various ways ( though context and ameliorating passages can also counter this - again interpretation and subjective bias comes into play ). However the Qur’an is not the Protocols of Zion and does not make the claims it does. Belief in that nonsense is largely in the realms of nutball conspiracy theory, something which sadly seems to be far more accepted in that region - Again generations of propaganda breed ignorance.
Obscure, no. Fringe, yes, even now, in many areas. Less so in some areas, like Pakistan - But even there is is still a minority. It appears that in regions like Southeast Asia, it is still a tiny minority. We have argued this before along with ObL’s popularity, which as you know I contend is more apparent than real and not based on widespread support for his ideals, but rather underdogism combined with general anti-western resentment ( that stems far less from theology, than it does with geo-politics ). We will continue to disagee on this, I guess.
Perhaps, but in the modern day Christianity isn’t being used as the justification for widespread murder, assault, and overbearing punishment. Is this inherent in the nature of Islam? No. However, it would be somewhat disingenuous to deny that, as religions go, Islam is being exploited in the name of coercion far more than any other religion now in the world.
In general, I would say that the issue is not so much the specific religion, but that any religion can become dangerous to life and limb when it is strongly intertwined with government. Throw in a numbness to violence due to unending wars and the like, and you end up with a dangerous situation of extreme religious devotion coupled with a lack of empathy for your fellow man.
Here’s my $0.02 worth. I disagree with your first statement- religion has done nothing positive for humanity. I agree with your second up to a point - we never needed religion in the first place.
Let’s stop and look at organized religion for a moment. Take any 3 religions widely seperated by time and distance. I like to use Christianity, the Roman pantheon and the sacrifices of the Aztecs. Compare them and look at what they have in common. They all boil down to two common goals: accumulation of wealth and the gaining of power over the adherants. And they do this by exploiting the human fear of death: do what we tell you to do and give us your money, and when you die, you won’t just go out like a blown-out candle, you’ll get to go to heaven/valhalla/paradise/elysian fields/wherever.
Organized religion is nothing more than a giant con game and people are willing to die and kill others rather than admit they were suckered. I envision some caveman many centuries ago who had this flash of brilliance as he watched his tribe cower in a cave when it was thundering and lightning outside. He came up with the concept of blowing smoke up the tribe’s collective hindquarters and convinced them that he could interpert the lightning and thunder. And in return for his so doing, they had to hunt for him and give him his choice of the women. In other words, he invented god.
The con has grown bigger and more elaborate since then, but that, I think, was the beginning.
Which would seem to be a direct result of Islam being the predominant religion in those areas of the world where there is already the most strife. The folks in Northern Ireland and the folks in India have no problem calling on their own brands of religion to justify their hatred and their violence. (There are some extremists in Israel (e.g., the former Kach party), who justify their hatred in religion, as well.) This human tendency might be a legitimate criticism of religion, in general, (although it looks no different, to me, than the Communist/Capitalist feud from which we recently emerged), but is has no particular bearing on which religion is being used.
I like the “but we aren’t doing anything bad right this second” approach to defending Christianity while bashing Islam. Go on like that long enough and the rest of the sheep will get the idea that Christians have some kind of moral authority (imagine that).
What most of you people seem to be missing, except for a select few who have tried to push the discussion in this direction to no avail, is that “Islam” is not a homogenous religious culture. If this is too difficult then please understand that there are likely as many different interpretations of Islam as there are denominations in Christianity. Quote as many bits of religious text as you like but you must realize that not everyone is going to read it the same way, it just isn’t a very good way of evaluating what Islam is.
To focus on Islam so obsessively is to ignore a whole host of factors which lead people toward extremism and even fanaticism. I know this makes things difficult for those of you who like to make your labels speak for you, but the world doesn’t come in black and white. Many of the hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism come from repressive secular regimes, areas where poverty and war is the rule and/or from under the fist of Israel. Yes it is true that many of these countries are backward, but think about that, where do you think the stronghold of the religious right is in your own country? Not the cities. Ignorance breeds this kind of contempt for those who think differently and some of you on this board are no less guilty of that those who preach about the “great satan”.
The line between the political and the religious is poorly defined in quite a few of these countries, it often seems that if the two are not actively working against each other then they are working together against the people. I am no apologist for Islam, not anymore than I could say that all Christians are peaceful with a straight face. But it seems to me that an analysis of what lies beneath these beliefs, the factors which make extremism more popular, would be more useful than asinine generalizations.
How to address this ignorance? Let’s just mention a couple of the current or recent areas with some ongoing murdering: Northern Ireland (between two Christian sects, mind you), Lebanon (Christians vs. Muslims). To heck with it: do your own research. Unless, of course, you delight in not knowing what you’re talking about.
And it’s ignorant to assert that Christianity’s not being used in the same manner by certain morons on this planet.
—No no no - no concentration camps. Just take away the children of religious people and raise them to be non-religious. —
Raise them where? {sarcasm}For efficiencies sake, I suggest we raise them in concentration camps?{/sarcasm}
Did people just miss this comment somehow?
I think people, as is often the case when religion is involved, are giving far too much agency to the religion, when really causality works just as often the other way around. People still CHOOSE to follow the commands they think their religion authorizes. Many people speak as if the mere fact of believing that there is an all powerful God that condones murder is enough to explain why they think it is justifiable.
If I believe there really is a God who really does advocate death for non-belief, then I would be inclined to think him a monster, not to obey him, regardless of the consequences. Everyone has still this choice, no matter WHAT they believe. You just can’t get off the hook for your actions even if you DO think they are mandated by God.
Which was the point on which I asked for evidence rather than your declaration. I’m still looking for the thread that examined the complex relationship between the media and the Egyptian government, but I am not inclined to simply take your word that all speech is government controlled.
(I agree that free speech is nearly non-existent in many Arab countries; we are specifically discussing Egypt, which, while authoritarian, is not an Islamist state.)
And if you look at descriptions of the actual censorship, you will finds that the government prohibits any criticism of the government. There is no statement on any critical website that I have found that indicates that the Egyptian government dictates material or that any material originates with the government. There is a difference between the Egyptian method of preventing criticism and the North Korean method of actually producing the material.
Egypt is a secular authoritarian state, not an Islamist state. So there is still no support for the claim that anti-Israeli programs that are tolerated by the government are the equivalent of programs produced by the government. (And this is still way off the track for this thread, since Egypt is not an Islamist state and its fights with Israel (however they are supported in the media) are political, not based in religion.)
Call this lame (it is lame for someone who is far from an expert on religeon) my saying religeon has been a good thing in the past (I can’t remember exactly what I said) was based on the belief that it gave a mass of people a reason to live and to work, and a will to live.
And I believe people can get all those today without religeon. Religeon has become out of date, but in the past it was useful to ‘civilize’ people. I am not saying it was perfect - it never was (mainly the hinderence on scientific discovery and social understanding) but it may have done more good than harm.
Never underestimate the value of a moral compass, not to mention easy answers to some of our more perplexing mysteries ( who are we, what is our purpose? ).
Science and religion do not have to be exclusionary, philosophers have been declaring God dead for over a century… He is still around.