Sorry about the confusing parsing above, I kept amending my post as it went and I left a few fragments in. Hopefully it still makes sense.
- Tamerlane
Exactly. In fact, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of the renaissance, the Islamic world took advantage of the chaos and did try (and almost succeeded) to conquer the known world.
And no, I am not suggesting that the west developed the mid-east oil reserves for humanitarian reasons more than economic ones. But if say, Stalin’s USSR had developed it, Islam would have been destroyed utterly to keep it.
And I think that as far as the US is concerned our wealth & prosperity over the last 200 years has not come at the expense of muslims.
I don’t have any particular beef with this argument as long as you acknowledge that most of the rest of the world were of the same bent :). From the Assyrians on down to 19th century. Islam was nothing special in this regard.
More accurate to say he would have tried - After all despite strenuous efforts he didn’t succeed in stamping it out in his own country. But no argument from me that representative democracies are better than Stalinist dictatorships.
- Tamerlane
Oh and really Islam never came close to conquering the world in any literal sense. Not even remotely, though it did make a large splash. Also, after the first successors to Muhammed it is probably more accurate to speak of the various individual states, rather than to anthropomorphize Islam itself.
- Tamerlane
Like many Dopers have pointed out on countless occasions…
Religions have the potential to be some of the most powerful instruments of change in our world. It is much easier to convert someone to your cause by saying “God says so, and your soul will rot if you do not obey me” than by simply saying “do this.” It should come as no surprise, then, that madmen who are willing to do anything to get their way will eventually turn to some form of religion as a way of achieving their ends, as religion can be a very powerful tool of persuasion.
I, for one, am sick of folks misinterpereting my Christian faith. And besides, if I believed that Christianity was a religion of conquest and blood, I would most certainly convert so something else. I don’t do so because I believe Christianity is basically good and right. It’s always the wackos that get the attention.
[rant]
The title reminded me of the phrase “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”.
i.e., overtly STATING that there’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, means that unles you had said it, everyone could assume that your “default” belief is quite the opposite.
it just really cheeses me off when people say [wink wink] there’s nothing WRONG with that[/wink wink] as in “its politically incorrect to say there IS, and i really think there IS, i’m just not saying it”.
[/rant]
not to imply that the poster or the respondents feel that way, it just reminded me of that situation.
Captain Amazing, the rest of the koran is about when you should cut off someone’s hand, which hand to cut off, when you should stone people, and other crap like that. It makes the old and new testaments look like a disney cartoon in comparison. There is not a single redeeming thing in any of those 11,000 or so verses. Not a single one. In the old testament, there are probably 5 or 6 redeeming things; in the new testament maybe 8 or 9. In the koran - zero. Zilch. Goose egg.
JThunder don’t point me to a christian fundy website to make a case that atheism leads to genocide. More people died in the last 24 hours in the name of religion that have ever been killed in the name of “no belief.”
>isn’t there usually a distinction between the writings of a
>religion and the lifestyle of its adherents?
In terms of the major religions, hopefully there will be a distinction, because if people follow their respective religious texts literally, they’d all be causing horrible death and destruction. But to answer your question, yes, jews like any other peoples who don’t follow their religious texts word-for-word are not really jews. With jews, however, they are often considered a race of sorts, so that’s a little iffy. To the extent jews are a race, they’re still jewish… but in terms of being jewish with regards to what they believe… nope.
>who are you to claim that someone is not a “real” Christian or
>a “real” Muslim??? For an atheist, you certainly seem to be
>claiming God-like knowledge about other people’s faiths.
I’m an objective observer standing on the outside with no ‘faith’ to cloud my mind.
It’s really a simple concept to grasp. You can’t be a true member of a belief system if you don’t believe all of it, especially when the foundation of said belief system is based on a “divine” book written by god. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if you don’t believe all of it, you’re not really “one” of them. Now, before you ask me “so if i’m a pro-choice republican then i’m not really a republican?” allow me to point out that political parties are not belief systems, nor are their platforms divinely inspired (no matter what john ashcroft says 
). This line of reasoning only applies to the teachings of a book one professes to be written by the creator of the universe. When you are going to believe in such a book, it’s all or nothing. Picking only certain parts of it to believe in is akin to second-guessing god. You just can’t do that. You’re more than welcome to go find another religion, or hell, go start your own. But if you pick and choose, you’re not a real whateveryouthinkyouare.
If your bible says that you are supposed to stone to death a virgin bride if she’s raped, then you *have to believe that * and you probably have a duty to do it. God said it, god wants it, and “god works in mysterious ways.” If you don’t want to stone an innocent rape victim, then go find another religion. I’m not the one questioning a god here. if you’re picking and choosing parts of the bible (or koran, whatever) to believe in, and other parts to not believe in, then you’re the one with the insane ego because you seem to think you know better than the god you believe in.
>If Islam seems to be in turmoil today, I think it probably has a
>lot to do with the fact that a greater proportion of Muslims than
>Christians lives in poverty in the world today.
Poverty breeds religion, i’ll give you that. The poorest most desperate people in this world are also the most religious. But islam has always been violent, aggressive, and has always had a “spread by the sword” mentality. Even if poverty has caused moderate muslims to turn into foaming at the mouth murderous ones, who cares? That’s no excuse at all. What, should america change our policies to make them happy? Giving in to terrorists justifies their methods and is against public policy, because other people will say “hey, if i terrorize i’ll get what i want from the victims, so i’m gonna go terrorize.” We can’t let that happen.
Your own words speak volumes, Kalt. It appears that you’re willing to offer unsubstantiated statements, but protest vehemently when someone provides a link to refute said claims.
Besides, I’m not claiming that atheism necessarily results in genocide, or any form of killing. However, if you’re to consider the Crusades as a black mark against Christianity (or more specifically, Catholicism), then one must also consider the track record of worldviews which specifically and uncompromisingly promote atheism – and their track record is dismal indeed.
Additionally, atheism is not just “no belief,” despite modern propaganda to this effect. Just check the Encyclopedia Britannica and The Encyclopedia of Philosophy – and numerous other references – to see how this term has been twisted to mean merely “no belief.” (Besides which, such a claim is patently self-refuting. If you believe that theists are incorrect in their claims or analysis, then you most certainly ARE espousing a belief.)
I think I get a kick out of the idea that if someone doesn’t obey a contradictory, outdated text in all of its minutiae – including the ones that contradict each other, apparently – one isn’t a real believer in the religion.
Kalt, you are aware, I hope, that some people believe that the entirety of Christianity is “Love the lord God with all of your heart” and “Love your neighbour as yourself”, and that all the rest of the texts is nothing but commentary and debate? And that this is entirely valid as a belief system and, in fact, one supported by the traditions from which Christianity grew and which are documented in its Old Testament – which is composed in significant part of commentary and debate? Which tradition lives on in at least some sects of modern Judaism?
(Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. --Mark 12:30-34)
(“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." --Matthew 22:36-40)
(“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ " “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” --Luke 10:26-28)
Kalt, you seem to be falling prey to the same activity that you accuse religious folk of, namely the fault of picking and choosing what passages to ignore.
There are passages in the Bible and the Q’aran that seem to endorse destruction. You point out that, if folks followed these verses literally, there would be much bloodshed.
But, as you seem to forget, there are also passages in the Bible and the Q’aran that endorse compassion and tolerance. By your logic, then, it would seem that “true” Christians or Muslims both wantonly destroy everything disagreeable, and simultaneously, are perfectly loving and compassionate in all their days.
Why must “true” Muslims or Christians only ascribe to the percieved negative aspects of their respective texts? Why not the good?
Want to see a violent Christian group? Check out the Lord’s resistance army.
Hmm, Poitiers was pretty close to my doorstep.
Later, the siege of Vienna was pretty close as well.
I think I’ll have another croissant and say a thank you to the Poles.
While Poitiers may be linked to the initial Islamic surge, Vienna was clearly an invasion by Turks who happened to be Muslim rather than a religious war. And, as Tamerlane indicated, even Europe hardly counts as “conquering the world.”
Contradictions in the divine books seem to be the biggest flaw in the communication of meaning to followers of a religion.
If the Authors wanted everyone to ‘love thy neighbour’ then the books should have been written all at once and by very good lawyers.
Poverty is a major cause of terrorism no matter what religion you are. Poverty causes jealousy between the haves and the have nots, this is the motive for terrorism. The justification is ignorance and misinterpretation/communication of religious texts.
What religion do you think the world would have now, if the the Franks had been defeated and Europe conquered before the discovery of America?
Wether the Turks were fighting a religious war is neither here nor there. The net effect would have been a muslim Europe.
Even at this late date, consequences would have been huge.
What if all the influx into the America’s since the 1700’s would have been Muslim Europeans instead of Christian ones.
Big question is, ofcourse, if there would have been a colonial period for Europe if it had been Muslim. If not then Africa and Asia would be mainly non-muslim , as today. If so then the whole world would likely be Muslim by now.
Why do you believe that they would have changed their practices if they had conquered more of Europe? The Turks certainly settled Muslims in what is now the Balkans, but they did not force the Christians living in Greece or the Balkans to convert. So, assuming a sweep of some portion of Europe, the reasonable assumption would be that Christianity would have survived. Given that the Turks did not have the wherewithal to return for another try after the defeat at Vienna, how likely is it that they could have sustained an assault on all of Europe?
Without playing odd “what-if” games into the wee hours of the dawn, it remains true that Muslims never came close to conquering the whole world.
Oh but it’s such fun…
No it doesn’t.
I agree with you that under the Turks Christianity would have survived but not much more than that.
There is, however, no playing down of the importance of the battle of Poitiers.
I often enjoy historical revisions, but in this case there is little to revise IMHO. Poitiers was a skirmish rather than a decisice battle and the Islamic advance in 711 was already on its last legs in terms of momentum and logistics. As it was the Ummayyad dynasty was shortly to suffer a series of serious reverses and internal turmoil. France would never have been held.
Nah. Same situation. The Ottomans might well have taken Vienna, with perhaps some real impact on the Austrian Hapsburgs if they had held it for more than just a few years. Certainly it would have caused Charles V to suspend his European wars where possible and redouble his efforts in the east instead of just leaving them in the hands of his brother Ferdinand. But the Ottomans too were at the end of their logistical rope and Austria at that point offered little outside of a strategic position to replenish that. Further advance was highly unlikely. Indeed, as it is they withdrew well back - Leaving Hungary a vassal of sorts under the Zapolya’s ( at leasat for the time being ).
A complete Muslim conquest of Europe was never in the offing at any point in my-ever-so-humble-opinion. In fact I would argue that given the realities of the situation, it was virtually impossible.
- Tamerlane
Oh and the Ottomans in 1683 were getting fairly decrepit ( not all the way there yet by a good margin, but spiralling down ). Jan Sobieski prevented a nasty sacking no doubt, but a savior of Christianity? Nah.
- Tamerlane
I realised that I have not given an opinion on the OP.
I disagree with it for several reasons-
I don’t know of anything in the Koran that, when taken in context(which is rather important. Take a line from the NT out of context and you get “There is no God.” instead of “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no God.’”) support the killing of unarmed bystanders. Kalt, I think you should read the ask the Muslim Guy thread.
What the heck is Islamic Culture? Is the same Islamic culture practiced by Sunis, Sufis, Wahabites, etc? Is the same Islamic Culture practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, America? Before you can prove to me that Islamic culture is flawed, you’ll have to prove to me that such a huge, homogenous thing actually exists.
Re Guys Named Muhammed-
I remember the first Muslim I ever knew. He was born in the Middle East(it was years ago so which country exactly escapes me.) After I got to know him, we began to discuss religion and politics. After comparing notes, we agreed that we were both children of Abraham/Avram/Ibrihim and both worshipped the same God he did. After comparing more notes, we both agreed that the fighting and killing was terrible and our peoples should really settle things peacefully.
I don’t remember his last name anymore. But, his first name was Muhammed.