And your evidence for this assertion is…?
This despite the historical record of contemporaneous opposition in the New World.
You assert without evidence. You seem to assume there was a Muslim analogue of de las Casas. Demonstrate this, if you please.
You were stating that I was ignorant of this, when in fact I had already acknowledged as much several posts before. I have a little problem with that.
That some Christian conquerors were genuinely motivated by their faith? That seems trivially easy to find. I’ll put it on my to-do list, if you really really want me to.
How does this contradict it? I’m saying most of the Christian priests – not all, but most – involved in colonization were just as bad as the other professions involved. I don’t think priests are any better or worse, on average, than any other common profession, whether in the past or present.
I don’t assume this. I don’t think it’s particularly important, because I think folks like de las Casas were a pretty extreme minority, and rather unimportant through most of the colonization efforts by Christian powers.
Geez. I beg your pardon, then.
Fair enough, but good luck attributing these patterns to a single variable amongst thousands with any degree of accuracy.
The Abrahamic religions are more similar than different…we’re not comparing Scientology and worship of Czernobog here.
Well, they could. God commands or commits mass slaughter repeatedly in the bible. Want to justify killing heretics? No problem! God vows their destruction in the golden calf affair, and when Moses talks him out of it, punishes them with a plague instead.
The outcomes would be different where the practices were different, and similar where they are similar.
Muhammad also advocated the paying of taxes for earthly works.
If you think Koran contains only intolerance and hatred, I think we’ve found the problem.
Certainly, but the concepts are distinct. Do you consider it an indictment of Native American religions, for instance, that its practitioners failed to develop steam engines?
Because they were different people in different eras. “How did they treat the Indians they subjugated?” is a pretty bizarre metric to use here. No Muslim peoples were as brutal and oppression to the medieval pagan Prussians as Christians were…why not use that as the metric?
That’s pretty bizarre thinking. Scale is a matter of physics, not ideology.
And, the Reconquista plus the Crusades covers the period 718-1285.
That some Christian conquerors were motivated to build pyramids of the skulls of unbelievers? Yes - please show me that.
I don’t give a fuck about priests per se. However, I am comparing the clerics of one religion to another, not to boatswains and fletchers and the like as you are doing.
Again, this is ignorance. De las Casas was not some Cindy Sheehan-type character, drawing PR and doing fuck-all. Check out the Valladolid debate. The dude actually got some shit done.
Sorry - I guess I came across like a pompous ass there. Won’t be the last time…
I don’t considering killing a bunch of people and building skull mountains to be significantly worse than just killing a bunch of people. Disgusting and weird, surely, but mass murder + skull mountain is pretty much the same, morally speaking, as plain ol’ mass murder.
I’ll still hold the same opinion. Most of the Christian priests were pretty bad, in general, in colonization efforts. I’m sure most Muslim clerics, during conquests, were as well.
I downplayed it a bit, but this is barely significant compared to the massive injustice during the colonial period. From your Wikipedia link: “it did not substantially alter Spanish treatment of the Indians”.
No problem.
No, it isn’t. I didn’t ever, not once, say that the Koran causes people to act like jerks. I’ve said that people use the Koran to justify being jerks. There’s a huge difference between the two statements.
Could someone maybe point out where I said that this was ONLY a problem with Islam and not with any other religion? Because I don’t remember saying that. It’s just that, at the moment, we’re talking about Islam and it’s connections to some murderous assholes.
Shame on you for trying to call me lazy and of attempting to “cop-out”; neither are true.
From my point of view, you’ve been lazy. You aren’t asking questions that I haven’t answered already; you just seem to be too lazy to read what’s already written.
That’s you copping out of your responsibility in this discussion, IMO.
Okay? Are we even on throwing around unfounded and vague accusations of malfeasance?
I’d encourage you to read the discussion iiandyiii and I were having and the discussions that prompted it, and especially read that essay An Open Letter to Moderate Muslims; the author does a terrific job of explaining why people have these questions and why so many Muslims have a hard time answering them. He does a better job than I prolly do at explaining it, which is why I wish more people would give it a read.
This possibly belongs in the pit, but I’m gonna say…yes, you copped out. You dismissed my post – after first responding to it – and you claimed that you’d already discussed it all with another poster. If this is a private discussion, take it to personal messages. As long as it’s in a public forum, I have as much right as anyone to argue with you.
I was responding to what you were saying now, not to what you had said in earlier posts. Also, you asked me three cogent questions, which I answered…and then, out of nowhere, you decide I’m not good enough for you to talk to. Bad form.
The addition of “IMO” makes this, of course, perfectly true. My own opinion differs.
Anyway, this particular side-issue is pointless, and is probably close to violating the rules – and as it doesn’t really rise to a pit-worthy level, I’m not interested in taking it there.
In my opinion, you’re using the word “bigotry” wrongly. That’s all I came in to this thread to say.
Beliefs matter. Despite subjugation by the Chinese, Tibetans don’t commit suicide bombings or decapitate people. Their fundies light themselves on fire.
Sappers in Vietnam were suicide bombers and they were Bhuddists.
For that matter, the Kamikaze pilots were the original suicide bombers and they were almost all Bhuddists and Shinto practitioners.
And the people who popularized it in the postwar period were the Tamil Tigers, who were secular Marxists of mostly Hindu or quasi-Hindu background (though they had a significant Christian minority).
Sorry it took me so long.
If you are against circumcision (And I assume you mean done to others against their will or before they are of an age to consent) in general, then you’re not falling to the intellectual inconsistency that was pointed out, so no harm no foul.
What I meant was that I do not think his quote is insightful. Arbitrarily defined “good people” only do arbitrarily defined “bad things” because of religion? Do arbitrarily defined bad people do arbitrarily defined good things because of religion? If someone does something bad while motivated by money or sex, are they by definition not a “good person”?
Anyway I think it is wrong, and I think it comes from screwed-up definitions of ‘religion’ that are so common in society and in this thread.
Islamic societies also, of course, kept the institution of slavery much longer than most Christian countries did. Many Muslim African states had legal slavery until the Europeans shut it down in the early 20th century, and some of the Gulf states had slavery until the 1960s. (In fairness, Christian Ethiopia was an exception, as they also had slavery up until the 1940s).
Not that simple. Tibetans do, occasionally, commit acts violence against the Chinese.
Number of Mideast Slaves or descendants who went on to be Sultans : 28 (plus the Janissaries who had gigantic weight in the Ottoman Empire, plus the ghulams out East - I can’t be arsed to tally them all up).
Number of Atlantic Slaves or descendants who went on to be Presidents of the United States (or any European state) : 0.
Wow, this really doesn’t flatter European societies !
Hint : in the Middle East, the notion of “slave” encompassed a **vast **gamut of people, roles and influences, behaviours and treatments. Many were warriors, and since that’s one way to power, some became powerful. Others were learned men.
Now how many African slaves were armed in the United States ? How many were taught how to read ? How many occupied important posts and positions of influence ?
Not to mention of course that European slavery never was restricted to the Atlantic trade. Greeks and Romans, Franks and Vikings, they were all slavers too. And Spanish conquistadores, natch. Put just the Indian skull pile next to the African skull pile, I reckon Europeans have the Middle East beat by a sizeable margin, and that’s just with the post-16th centuries.
Not that comparing the size of skull piles ever meant anything, really.
But don’t compare apples and oranges, it’s foolish.
Neither was Islamic slavery restricted to the trans-Saharan trade, or to a short period in time. Muslim states in Sahelian Africa, again, had legal slavery well into the 20th century.
There is a scriptural justification for separation of Church and State in Christianity. Mark 12:17. Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and give to God that which belongs to God. Are any similar sentiments expressed in the Koran or the Hadith?
Kobal2 is right that the Western slave trade and Islamic slave trade (these terms are contestable) are not directly comparable. Of course, neither was defensible. Slaves in Islamic countries were more likely to be for sex slavery and until the colonial era was never challenged by grassroots movements because of how codified it was in jurisprudence. On the other hand, slavery in the west had more of a racial component and its social effects were more intensely disruptive.
Muhammad founded a Muslim polity, and the Muslims swore oaths (bayah) to him and the Caliph, and the Shahadah has a political component. Quietist traditions developed among Shia after a few generations but these were not secular as we would recognize them. I hesitate to answer “no” because this will be taken by some to mean that pre-modern Islamic states were like what Islamists today want, and this is not the case. But the short answer is that the Christian traditions born of early subjugation and interplay between clerics and emperors didn’t find Islamic expressions until relatively recently. Some scholars read back secular ideas into the early sources but this is historically unreasonable in my opinion.
“Peaceful” and “oppressive” are not antonyms.