|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
I found this interesting article today: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030606.html quote:
Dear Cecil:
I'll get right to the point. Why is the Islamic world so backward and ignorant? A thousand years ago, we hear, Arab culture put Europe in the shade, with great achievements in mathematics, astronomy, and architecture. Now it all seems to have boiled down to sadists and fanatics. I know this is a lot to explain in a column where they don't even let you jump to an inside page, Cecil, but give it a whiz: Where did our Muslim brothers go wrong? --Bud Clarke
Cecil replies:
Let's watch the glib generalizations, Bud. The Islamic world isn't uniformly "backward and ignorant." (And these days less than a fifth of its population is Arab.) Among the relatively nonignorant, nonbackward parts are Turkey and Malaysia, which, while not without their problems, have made considerable strides toward what Americans understand as modernity. But I'll grant you that those countries are exceptions. I'll grant you another point too: Throughout the Crusades, which began in 1095 when Pope Urban II called upon Christians to wrest the Holy Land from Muslim control, one side might reasonably have been described as civilized, tolerant, and progressive, while the other was by and large a bunch of backward, ignorant, bloodthirsty fanatics. Hint: It wasn't the Muslims who, upon capturing Jerusalem in 1099, gleefully slaughtered everyone there.
Today Islam claims some 1.2 billion adherents, most living in a broad swath stretching from the Atlantic coast of north Africa eastward to Indonesia and the Philippines. (For comparison, there are 1.9 billion Christians worldwide, most of them Catholics.) While abject poverty is rare in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of the population is just getting by. Take for example the 280 million people, the great majority of them Muslim, who live in the 22 Middle Eastern and African nations that make up the Arab League. According to a 2002 UN report by a group of Arab scholars, 65 million adults in these countries are illiterate, two-thirds of them women; the 1999 gross domestic product of the entire Arab League was less than that of Spain; for the past decade average annual growth in per capita income in the Middle East has been the lowest in the world outside sub-Saharan Africa; the 15 percent unemployment rate is one of the highest in the developing world; and Arabs have translated as many books in the last thousand years as the Spanish now do in one.
Some Western observers would have you believe that this is all because of an Islamic or Arabic culture that prizes bluster over substance. One influential book, Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind (1983), suggests that the Arab predilection for overstated rhetoric (remember the absurd pronouncements of Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf?) is rooted in the floweriness of the Arabic language. Nonsense--the inflated talk can be more readily explained as an attempt to compensate for powerlessness. Similarly, it's irresponsible to insist that some inherent quality of the Islamic religion perpetuates ignorant fanaticism. Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.
The truth is that the present gap between the fortunes of the Islamic world and those of the West isn't a result so much of Muslim failure as European success. For roughly a thousand years, from the death of Muhammad in 632 to the breaking of the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683, Islamic rulers vied with Christian ones for dominance in the Mediterranean. In the end the Muslim powers lost because the circumstances of empire didn't compel them to develop their human resources the way the Europeans did--they were outmanned, outwitted, and outgunned.
The decline of the Ottomans (who were Muslims but not Arabs) is an instructive example. In 1453 they captured Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul, in the process eradicating the last vestige of the Roman empire. They built a mighty empire of their own and intimidated Europe for 200 years. But in the end their grand edifice suffered the fate of all empires--corruption, internal division, and decay. The European nations of the day had greater access to natural resources to start with and were obliged by the fiercely competitive nature of European politics to constantly innovate. As early as 1492 you could see the shape of things to come: not only did Ferdinand and Isabella finance Columbus's voyages to America, they expelled the Moors from Spain.
By the 18th century it was clear that the Ottomans (and the Muslim world in general) were in decline. The Islamic response was to turn inward. Reformist Muslim sects argued for a return to tradition, and what had once been a tolerant religion grew more and more conservative and xenophobic. European colonization of Muslim lands in the 19th century increased resentment of the West, which in turn contributed to Muslim isolationism in the postcolonial era. By the time oil was discovered it was too late--Muslim (and particularly Arab) countries lacked the ability to exploit their own wealth and had to rely on Europeans to do it for them. Oil money enabled small elites to become Westernized, but despite a sharp increase in literacy in the past few decades, it's fair to say that in many countries the Islamic masses remain comparatively backward and ignorant.
All of which is an object lesson, I guess. What did our Muslim brothers do wrong? Nothing. They just stopped doing a lot of the stuff they'd gotten right, and the world passed them by.
--CECIL ADAMS
Quite a nice summation of the book Germs Guns and Steel, written by Diamond, and "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis.
It also suggests the idea that political competition will advance a society - an argument agains a European Union by people who value war over peace, I suppose.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
From Cecil:
In the end the Muslim powers lost because the circumstances of empire didn't compel them to develop their human resources the way the Europeans did--they were outmanned, outwitted, and outgunned.
That's what happens when you trust people named Bud and Cecil for social commentary.
I'll write more later, but right now I just woke up and my head hurts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
It's difficult to summarize close to two millenia of Islam, and all its impact on every Islamic and European nation, and do so with complete accuracy. The overview of the decline of Islam is worthwhile. But I dislike that Islam and Christianity are spoken of as two interchangeable religions. quote:
(from the above article):
...it's irresponsible to insist that some inherent quality of the Islamic religion perpetuates ignorant fanaticism. Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name. It was Constantine who first aligned with Christians and granted them the right to freely practice Christianity in the Roman Empire, and began the more secular influence of Christianity over armies and politics, that became the Roman Catholic church.
But BEFORE Constantine, Christianity had already spread to every corner of the Roman Empire. Christianity had already spread throughout the empire peacefully, it was only recognition and the freedom to practice Christianity openly that Constantine offered.
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy, which led to the Reformation, begun my Martin Luther in 1517, and other reformers.
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory. It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
Once printing presses made the Bible widely available to individuals, Christianity changed dramatically, and regained the peaceful nature that had been lost. Those fleeing the stranglehold of Rome on Europe, came to Pennsylvania and the other English colonies, to practice Christianity in a way more consistent with the Bible. And establish government that guaranteed the free practice of true Christianity, in a new form of government strongly based in Christian principles.
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
I recognize that Islam has made some contributions in these areas as well, but I don't like seeing Christianity block-labelled in the same category as Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
This is simply not true. You don't really believe this do you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Interestingly, the one quote that Dave TWB points out, is the one I like the most. And its not because of Christianity Dave TWB, but really goes to my take on all organized religions in general. In truth, I think one could put in the name of any organized religion in each of those spaces and say that each religion can find reasons for justifying most anything.
Interesting article BTW, Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
Funny that you would disagree with one of the few points from the original article that I actually agree with.
The idea that the scriptures of Christianity, Islam, and most any other religion share the common potential of misuse has been proven time and time again throughout history. If you don't believe that the teachings of Christianity can be interpreted in many different ways, review this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray.
Muslims have certainly lived in Christian lands as well.
The Inquisition, as I said is (1) arguably not true Christianity, and certainly an era where the Bible was kept from the public by Catholic clergy, and (2) an extremist reaction to Muslim invasion of Christian lands.
All nations, whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have trade relations and visitors from other lands of other religions. You take the most extreme period of Christian history, and say "this is what Christianity is about". I disagree.
Christianity was peaceful in its spread for 300 years, and has been throughout most of its history.
Islam, again, was violent in its spread from the time it began.
There have been peaceful and violent periods in both Muslim and Christian history. But at its root beliefs, Islam advocates violence in the name of Islam. Christianity does not. They are NOT comparable religions.
~
quote:
klinton:
This is simply not true. You don't really believe this do you?
Yes, I "really believe this."
klinton, if you look at the histories of Harvard, Princeton and Yale, in the founding of those Universities, you will quickly see this confirmed.
In the age of the Reformation, literacy was promoted by Protestant Christians, so each individual could read the Bible for themselves.
Most of the major scientists until the 20th century were devout Christians. Including Isaac Newton, the founder of modern Mathematics and Physics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
Funny that you would disagree with one of the few points from the original article that I actually agree with.
The idea that the scriptures of Christianity, Islam, and most any other religion share the common potential of misuse has been proven time and time again throughout history. If you don't believe that the teachings of Christianity can be interpreted in many different ways, review this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray.
Well said, Wednesday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
The cultural/literary/scholarly decline of the arab/islamic world started when Persia fell as a world power. I've read many Persian works of literature and they are beautiful and brilliant. Persia was the glue that held the Islamic world together in an intellectual/ creative way. persian culture seemed to balance the Arabian ideals with the Islamic religion. Once that was over the Islamic religion took over and seemed hell bent on conquest and revenge against the "christian" world that Crusaded against them, and focused moreso on the tenant of conquest for Allah. Also education of the populace became a thing of the past (in no small part..thanks to the crusades).
DTWB, I must say I do believe the "christians" of the Medievel period were indeed anti-semitic and murderers/thieves/rapists/charlatans for the most part. especially pre-Elizabethan. This is not to say Muslims were innocent of any travesties and conquests themselves. Just an observation.
You are correct though that literacy kept christianity from becoming more corrupt and eventually helped it become a religion of mostly peace. Because the common people could finally understand the text and meanings and not be swayed by those who corrupted and tarnished the message.
In America, I know absolutely, that the public school system and universities were created to teach children and young adults to read and study the Bible. It was generally understood in that day that biblical principles would hold American society together by founding it on a moral grounding. That biblical study would lead to knowlegdeable, creative citizenry and create a solid work force dedicated to building a great nation with a solid footing in brotherhood. Those aren't my words they are the words of Dewey and America's forefathers.
The humanitarian stuff I can't verify....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Yes, Pig Iron.
The role of Christianity as an essential element in American Democracy is clear in the writings of the founding fathers.
The only fear of our founding fathers was that one form of Christianity would possibly rise to dominate how Christianity was practiced in the United States, as the Roman Catholic church had dominated Europe. They valued Christianity as an essential element in democracy, and in education, as is reflected in these quotes:
Quote:
Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.
Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution.
from The Life of Gouverneur Morris by Jared Sparks, vol 3, p 483
There was a belief by the founding fathers that previous attempts at democracy had inevitably failed because of the absence of Biblical principles in their foundation, as in the Greek and Roman empires.
Their belief was that without Christian teaching and principles, democracy could only descend into chaos and self-destruction. That only the Bible could make democracy in the United States turn out differently:
Quote:
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
James Madison
from The Federalist on the New Constitution, p 53
Quote:
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams,
from Works, John Adams, vol 6, p 484, from a letter by Adams.
Quote:
All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, opression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.
Noah Webster.
from The History of the United States, by Webster, p 309
Quote:
The only true basis of all government [is] the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of Heaven, designed by the all-benevolent Creator.
Samuel Adams
from Writings, vol 1 p 269
Quote:
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained... It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible.
George Washington
from A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol 1, pp52-53
Quote:
The law dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
Alexander Hamilton
from The Papers of Alexander Hamilton by Harold C. Syret, vol 1, p 87
Quote:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Patrick Henry
from God's Providence in American History, by Steve Dawson, p 1
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he repeatedly or strenuously argued for.
But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear.
And equally clear, the desire of its creators that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
Again, I consider Christian concepts to be vastly different from those of Islam.
The ideas of a personal God (-vs- an unknowable God in Islam), of free will (-vs- a more fatalist mindset of Islam), and other ideas of human rights and dignity. That arguably have largely not reached the Islamic world even 200 years after the birth of democracy in the U.S. and Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Muslims have certainly lived in Christian lands as well.
Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis disagrees with you. That is something which only happened in very recent times. Lewis says in his book, "What Went Wrong?" that Muslims hated coming to the backwaters of Europe, and that in fact until the decline of the Ottomans, Jews much preferred the tolerance of Islam to the murderous antagonism of Christendom.
quote:
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
Universities, democracy, and science came from ancient Greece, a society which both Christendom and Islam claim as their root.
The word "hospital" comes from the Knights Hospitaller, a sect of Christians who helped the injured on the battlefields of the Crusades. But for most of the past 1000 years Muslim doctors were much superior to Western doctors.
"Humanitarian aid" is a modern concept hardly unique to Christian countries.
quote:
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name.
You're being very selective with your dates. Christians were in sufficient numbers to gather an army in their first 300 years - the Romans would have annihilated them if they had.
quote:
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory. It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
What nonsense! The Spanish Inquisition was established as a pogrom against Jews and the few remaining Muslims in Granada - see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Spanish+inquisition&go=Go
As for the Crusades, from www.wikipedia.org
quote:
The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Pope that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavors to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims but developed into territorial wars.
Historical background
The initial conquest of Palestine by the forces of Islam did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. However, in the year 1004 the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, Hakim, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it, and pilgrimage was permitted again.
The decisive loss of the Byzantine army to the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 brought the beginning of Byzantine pleas for troops and support from the West.
Reputation and evaluation
In Western Europe the Crusades have traditionally been regarded by laypeople as heroic defensive enterprises, although not all historians have agreed. In the Islamic world, however, the Crusades are regarded to this day as cruel and savage onslaughts by Christendom on Islam, and so, for example, some of the rhetoric from Islamic fundamentalists uses the term "crusade" in this emotional context to refer to Western moves against them. Eastern Orthodox Christians also see the Crusades as attacks by the West, especially because of the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade.
There is an interesting symmetry between the terms "Crusade" and "Jihad". In the West the term "Crusade" has positive connotations (for example a politician might use rhetoric such as "a crusade against illegal drugs") while the term "Jihad" has negative connotations associated with fanatical holy war. In the Islamic world the term "Jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "Crusade" has the negative connotations described above. Thus to correctly translate nuances of meaning, the use of "Jihad" in Arabic should be translated to "Crusade" in English while use of the Arabic term for "Crusade" should be translated to "Jihad" in English.
In truth much of what the crusaders did was less than heroic. They committed atrocities not just against Muslims but also against Jews and Christians. For example the Fourth Crusade never made it to Palestine, but instead sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire. This crusade served to deepen the already hard feelings between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity. The Byzantine Empire eventually recovered Constantinople, but its strength never fully recovered, and the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans in 1453.
And then, you contradict yourself in two adjacent sentences:
quote:
Islam, again, was violent in its spread from the time it began.
There have been peaceful and violent periods in both Muslim and Christian history.
And finally, we see your prejudices and ignorance laid out in full:
quote:
But at its root beliefs, Islam advocates violence in the name of Islam. Christianity does not. They are NOT comparable religions.
But see this:
quote:
Islam assigns Jews and Christians (and certain other, smaller, religions) the status of people of the Book on the basis of their monotheism, and their beliefs about God and the world. This status is based on several passages from the Quran that say how Christians, Jews, and Muslims share common scripture, morals, and prophets. Muslims believe that the 'People of the Book,' if they are decent and good, regardless of the fact that they are not Muslim, will go to Heaven. They are seen as cousins in the family of believers, and Muslims are encouraged to live on peaceful and equitable terms with them.
In one verse of the Quran, it says "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Quran, 60:8) which is interpreted as a clear admonition not to be disrespectful or unkind to non-Muslims. According to an authentic hadith, Muhammad said to his people "The one who murders a dhimmi(non-Muslim under protection of the state) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even if its smell was forty years travelling distance" [Sahih Ahmed].
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Extra info on Muhammed: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Islam&go=Go quote:
His basic message was one of belief in one God, respect for morality above and beyond tribal links, and prayer. As the ranks of his followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes, especially the Quraysh his own tribe whose responsibility it was to look after the Kaba, which at this time was home to the several thousand 'idols' that people worshipped as gods. As Muhammad preached against this pantheon he became deeply unpopular with the rulers and his followers suffered from repeated attacks to person and property. Eventually there was an assassination attempt. He was forced to flee Mecca on July 16, 622; this is known as the Hijrah, and it is the date that marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar.
Muhammad went to Medina (at that time known as "Yathrib") where he was invited to become ruler of the town by a large group of residents. He declared a welfare state, collected taxes for the needy, organised town defences against numerous raiding parties from Mecca and beyond, and entered numerous trade agreements. He built mosques, and established a religous culture based on respect for other religions and their freedom to practice (the town also was home to a number of Christians and Jews). He is credited with creating the first Constitution.
After the repeated raid attempts on the town, Muhammad and his followers began to raid the raiders' caravans, in retaliation and he distributed the treasure equally amongst his followers. By 627, Muhammad had united Medina under Islam with protected privileges for the Jews and Christians who lived there. Word of the new religion, with the peace and prosperity it brought spread by trade.
So what do we have here? Peace, tolerance for other religions, the first constitution, a welfare state, morality, monotheism. I see no violent source, as Dave claims.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Muslims have certainly lived in Christian lands as well.
Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis disagrees with you. That is something which only happened in very recent times. Lewis says in his book, "What Went Wrong?" that Muslims hated coming to the backwaters of Europe, and that in fact until the decline of the Ottomans, Jews much preferred the tolerance of Islam to the murderous antagonism of Christendom.
I was thinking of modern times, from the European colonial period forward.
I acknowledge that in the Middle Ages, beginning with The Inquisition, that it was a very bad time for Jews to be living in Spain. Although Holland became a place where Jews could live in relative freedom. Areas of Southern Europe directly under the rule of Rome were the worst places for Jews, and Muslims, and for non-Catholic Christians as well, during the Inquisition.
And again, I see the Medeival Roman Catholic church as not representative of true Christianity, as I already outlined above.
And again, I think it is undeniable that Islam had invaded all of Spain and Portugal, and much of the Mediterranean portion of Southern France. Regardless of how it is spun otherwise, the Crusades and Inquisition were a clear backlash to a Muslim invader that has been expelled, and at this point, anyone in those re-conquered regions (Spain particularly) who were other than Christian were viewed with suspicion and brutal treatment.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
Universities, democracy, and science came from ancient Greece, a society which both Christendom and Islam claim as their root.
The word "hospital" comes from the Knights Hospitaller, a sect of Christians who helped the injured on the battlefields of the Crusades. But for most of the past 1000 years Muslim doctors were much superior to Western doctors.
"Humanitarian aid" is a modern concept hardly unique to Christian countries.
Ah, but it began as part of Christian outreach, to care for the poor.
In Roman times, unwanted children were left in the streets to die. Christians first created orphanages to care for unwanted children.
The Salvation Army, and the Red Cross, are likewise organizations that began for the sick and the poor, that were later imitated by other cultures.
The Red Crescent in the Muslim world is an offshoot, emulating the example of the earlier Red Cross. There was no similar organization before Christians brought it to the Muslim world.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name.
You're being very selective with your dates. Christians were in sufficient numbers to gather an army in their first 300 years - the Romans would have annihilated them if they had.
They were in sufficient numbers, but didn't try to gather an army, because conquest was not in their beliefs.
It was Constantine, who politically used Christians to serve his own political ambitions, and established the Roman Catholic church to serve his own purposes. The reward was that Christians could, from that point forward, live in Rome and practice their religion without persecution.
My dates are not "convenient", they reflect --as I made clear above-- the point at which Christianity was hijacked and diverted from its true Biblical teachings, toward the corrupt political/state ambitions of Constantine.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory. It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
What nonsense! The Spanish Inquisition was established as a pogrom against Jews and the few remaining Muslims in Granada - see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Spanish+inquisition&go=Go
As for the Crusades, from www.wikipedia.org
As I said, part of an over-reaction after dispelling an invader who had completely occupied Portugal, Spain, and a large portion of France. It is a manifestation of xenophobia toward all non-Christians at that time, by a Christian population who wanted to eliminate the possibility of being over-run again.
Cruel, yes, but understandable.
I think that the atrocities of the Crusaders described in your quoted historical account make it clear that these were not wars fought on Christian principle, but were the ambitious wars of a corrupt few, pursuing political ambition. Their success in driving the Moors out of Spain made them confident to invade the heart of Islam, and re-take the city of Jerusalem (which had, centuries before, been a Christian city, until it was seized by the Muslims in 638 ).
I don't know that Christians had good access to Holy places prior to Crusader invasion of Jerusalem.
I've heard similar notions of "free access" expressed about Jerusalem in recent times, that free access is available to Jews, Christians, and Muslims to Jerusalem and other holy places in modern times, before and after Israel took Jerusalem in 1967. And I've heard the "freedom" of all religions to use these places hotly questioned, in all eras, by all sides. I don't buy that Muslims gave "more free" access to Jerusalem's holy places.
The comparison of what "Crusade" and "Jihad" mean in the Christian and Islamic worlds was actually quite interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And then, you contradict yourself in two adjacent sentences:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam, again, was violent in its spread from the time it began.
There have been peaceful and violent periods in both Muslim and Christian history.
As I made clear, I don't consider true Christianity to be practiced violently. I made clear that brutality occurred in the absence of true Christian teachings, under the deliberate misrepresentation of the Roman Catholic church and its clergy, which was finally abolished with the Enlightenment, begun by Martin Luther in 1517 (as I said above).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And finally, we see your prejudices and ignorance laid out in full:
That's a bit venomous and unnecessary, Dave. If you disagree with my views, there is ALWAYS a more diplomatic and polite way to say it than that.
As in the Gay Marriage topic, I think you go beyond respectful disagreement, and resort to name-calling.
I don't ever call you ignorant.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
But at its root beliefs, Islam advocates violence in the name of Islam. Christianity does not. They are NOT comparable religions.
But see this:
quote:
Islam assigns Jews and Christians (and certain other, smaller, religions) the status of people of the Book on the basis of their monotheism, and their beliefs about God and the world. This status is based on several passages from the Quran that say how Christians, Jews, and Muslims share common scripture, morals, and prophets. Muslims believe that the 'People of the Book,' if they are decent and good, regardless of the fact that they are not Muslim, will go to Heaven. They are seen as cousins in the family of believers, and Muslims are encouraged to live on peaceful and equitable terms with them.
In one verse of the Quran, it says "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Quran, 60:8) which is interpreted as a clear admonition not to be disrespectful or unkind to non-Muslims. According to an authentic hadith, Muhammad said to his people "The one who murders a dhimmi(non-Muslim under protection of the state) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even if its smell was forty years travelling distance" [Sahih Ahmed].
There are many other portions of the Quran that teach violent treatment of all who are unreceptive to the teachings of Islam.
Christians, contrary to what you quoted above, are seen as unbelievers who have a misguided view of the Bible. Muslims teach that that Ishmael is the favored son of Abraham (not Isaac, as the Bible clearly teaches in Genesis chapters 16 and 17: )
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+16&language=english&version=NIV
And they likewise view Christians with more contempt than the verse you just quoted above would indicate.
They look at the Old Testament and New Testament (selectively excerpted) as books of wisdom, but they don't believe Jesus is God, or really much of any of what the Bible teaches beyond Genesis 16.
Muslims believe Christ's resurrection is a fraud, that another man died on the cross, so he could pull off a hoax.
Muslims believe that Christians are "polytheists" (Father/Son/Holy Ghost is seen as worshipping multiple gods), and the idea that Allah had a human son is considered blasphemous:
quote:
The Quran:
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary], the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. [trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost] Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.
[19.88] And they [Christians] say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son.
[19.89] Certainly you have made an abominable assertion
[19.90] The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces,
[19.91] That they ascribe a son to the Beneficent God.
Clearly, Muslims do not share Christian faith in Jesus as Messiah. And view Christians with suspicion accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Here is the verse I was thinking of, about dealing with non-Muslim believers: quote:
The Quran:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
And here is Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of Jihad on Crusaders. You will note that the language is virtually identical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4993-2001Sep21
I say this because a considerable percentage of the Islamic world agrees with and approves of what Bin Ladin is doing, whether or not they would engage in violence on Crusaders themselves.
As I've said on other topics, many young Muslims have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers.
Between 30-50% of the population in most Islamic countries boycotts American products and businesses.
That is a clear endorsement of 9-11-2001.
The multiple Arab/Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others)involved in terrorism toward Israel, in rallies rich with Islamic holy rhetoric and noble martyrdom for Allah, likewise demonstrate a considerable Quran-based body of aggression and destruction.
To say nothing of Quran-based Muslim aggression in Sudan, Liberia, The Phillipines, Indonesia, East Timor, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Here is the verse I was thinking of, about dealing with non-Muslim believers:
quote:
The Quran:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
And here is Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of Jihad on Crusaders. You will note that the language is virtually identical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4993-2001Sep21
...
The multiple Arab/Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others)involved in terrorism toward Israel, in rallies rich with Islamic holy rhetoric and noble martyrdom for Allah, likewise demonstrate a considerable Quran-based body of aggression and destruction.
To say nothing of Quran-based Muslim aggression in Sudan, Liberia, The Phillipines, Indonesia, East Timor, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Hmmm... How should I rebut?
quote:
From Cecil:
...Similarly, it's irresponsible to insist that some inherent quality of the Islamic religion perpetuates ignorant fanaticism. Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.
Yeah, that about covers it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I say this because a considerable percentage of the Islamic world agrees with and approves of what Bin Ladin is doing, whether or not they would engage in violence on Crusaders themselves.
As I've said on other topics, many young Muslims have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers.
Between 30-50% of the population in most Islamic countries boycotts American products and businesses.
That is a clear endorsement of 9-11-2001.
The same could be said for a healthy percentage of the non-Islamic world. Dislike of the 50 States (and the wealth and power they hold) is more of a third-world thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Yes, I "really believe this."
klinton, if you look at the histories of Harvard, Princeton and Yale, in the founding of those Universities, you will quickly see this confirmed.
In the age of the Reformation, literacy was promoted by Protestant Christians, so each individual could read the Bible for themselves.
Most of the major scientists until the 20th century were devout Christians. Including Isaac Newton, the founder of modern Mathematics and Physics.
Christianity (and again, in case it's not clear, I'm speaking of the institution, not individual faith in God) has for the most part stood directly in the path of scientific advancement. Things like university and democracy have far older and more pagan origins. Yes, there are some shining examples of christians that accomplished great things in these areas, but they did so largely in opposition to popular christian thinking. Newton himself puplished works declaring that chritianity had lost it's way, and no longer adhered to Christ's intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
One could say the same for your view of Islam.
quote:
The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
....so was Christianity!
quote:
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name.
....what?!? You can't be serious, can you?
quote:
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory.
...no, they were direct results of paranoia and intolerance.
quote:
It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
Back then there was no seperation between the two.
quote:
Once printing presses made the Bible widely available to individuals, Christianity changed dramatically, and regained the peaceful nature that had been lost.
No, it just provided a larger platform for misinterpretation. The KKK, the Darwin cases, most hate crimes are based on the principle of Christinaity. It's become nothing more than an excuse for criminals to exercise their violent tendencies without having to take responsibility for their actions.
How many foreign countries have Christians invaded, intent on conversion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Too bad I don't share your knack for condescending remarks and insulting one-liners.
Perhaps then I could be a liberal as well.
Christian-bashing is quite fashionable, whether or not you have the facts on your side. It is fashionable to label Christianity as repressive and ignorant, and give no credit to the many achievements and benevolent social changes that have risen from Christianity.
It is not only Bible and Koran quotation that back up what I'm saying, but international news of violence and terrorism, violence toward women, and other repression, in virtually every Muslim nation.
All your smug condescension and skewed assumptions about Christianity won't change that.
I would argue that it is the stifling effect of Islam on personal freedom, business and trade that has left the Muslim nations behind the rest of the world.
You'd clearly rather rip on Christianity than address the flaws of Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Too bad I don't share your knack for condescending remarks and insulting one-liners.
I wasn't being condescending. My confusion was genuine. You seem to be an intelligent, well informed individual, yet your comment(or, at least, what I took from it) seemed quite the opposite.
As for my "insulting one liners", no malice was intended. I just think that a lot of the things you discredit Islam and it's roots for are also historically apparent in Christianity. If you're offended by that, I'm sorry, but it's my opinion(and, I'm gathering, also the opinion of klinton).
quote:
Perhaps then I could be a liberal as well.
I don't recall disclosing my political leanings to you(and I'd prefer you not assume you know me, when you obviously don't), and I don't see what that has to do with the topic, either. As far as I'm concerned, that's another topic entirely.
quote:
Christian-bashing is quite fashionable, whether or not you have the facts on your side.
I think there's a reason it's "fashionable." I've met quite a few Christians in my brief time as a human being, and I've had to study more of Christian/Jewish history then I'd probably care to otherwise. There's no denying that Christianity has had a fairly sordid past.
quote:
It is fashionable to label Christianity as repressive and ignorant, and give no credit to the many achievements and benevolent social changes that have risen from Christianity.
Now, I don't think anyone labels Christianity as repressive and ignorant, as Christianity is just a religion. It's the people behind the religion and those that perpetuate it's growth that take the brunt of such generalizations.
I'd say that the "many achievements and benevolent social changes"(at least the one's you mention, like universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy) are products of individuals or groups of people interested in helping societal growth, who, in certain cases, happened to be Christian. Not the church or prominent Christian figures, and not for Christrianity's benefit.
What's more, Christianity has often hindered the development of science. Some of the most famous scientific minds in history have been persecuted, ostricized and even executed because their theories and discoveries contradicted the popular beliefs and traditions of Christian teachings. Look at Galileo, who was imprisoned during the Inquisition in 1633.
quote:
It is not only Bible and Koran quotation that back up what I'm saying, but international news of violence and terrorism, violence toward women, and other repression, in virtually every Muslim nation.
You mention in your post how Christians are often labeled as oppressive and ignorant, then you do the same exact thing to those who practice Islam, here. Islam in no way promotes or supports the oppression of women, or violence of any kind. You'll probably say this is an example of "insulting, smug condescension", but I find that to be very hypocritical and pretentious.
quote:
I would argue that it is the stifling effect of Islam on personal freedom, business and trade that has left the Muslim nations behind the rest of the world. You'd clearly rather blame it on America and Christianity.
I don't blame Christianity or Islam for anything, as I've said before. I blame those that misinterpret it and use it to excuse their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
You know, I just posted a long point-by-point response to all your points, Animalman, and just decided to delete it instead.
My points are clear enough already. I respectfully agree to disagree with your interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
I've not been about for the past day or so, and I see that this has kicked on without me. I'm about to go to bed, and don't have the inclination right now to attack what you've had to say, Dave. But I have to admit, this: quote:
Cruel, yes, but understandable.
is a first for me: apologism for the Spanish Inquisition.
And, just because I can't help myself:
quote:
Christian-bashing is quite fashionable, whether or not you have the facts on your side. It is fashionable to label Christianity as repressive and ignorant, and give no credit to the many achievements and benevolent social changes that have risen from Christianity.
It is not only Bible and Koran quotation that back up what I'm saying, but international news of violence and terrorism, violence toward women, and other repression, in virtually every Muslim nation.
All your smug condescension and skewed assumptions about Christianity won't change that.
I would argue that it is the stifling effect of Islam on personal freedom, business and trade that has left the Muslim nations behind the rest of the world.
You'd clearly rather rip on Christianity than address the flaws of Islam.
I personally see no reason to rip into Christianity other than to point out that for every flaw you see in contemporary Islam, Christianity has suffered from similar flaws in its past. Benevolent Christianity is a recent phenomonon. Oppressive Islam is a recent phenomonon. There is no denying that Christian ethics were a factor in Western development. But by the same token, Islam was a factor in the development of the tolerant societies of the Middle East of the Middle Ages.
Further, for every Quranic verse you find which offends you, I can match it with an equivalent verse from the Bible (and certainly the Apocrypha, which was removed from canon by bishops because even they thought some of it was too offensive. I have read one story where a child Jesus calls own angels to rip apart his tormentors).
I'm sorry, Dave, but saying that Islam was born of the sword is ignorant of its origins - if not ignorant, then unreasonably biased or bigoted. If you find any academic, neutral, objective material on the origins of Islam which say anything to the contrary of a peaceful (anything to the left of the Christian Science Monitor), I'll gladly read them.
By "origins" I mean Muhammed, not his successors (many of which were conquest-orientated).
PS East Timor is a Catholic country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
It's been about a year since I looked at information on East Timor, so I researched it at these links, among others I found less useful: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/503050.stm I actually found this BBC link to be the most clear overview. http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/UntaetB.htm I posted this because you seem to favor the UN perspective. I find the UN to generally favor Muslim and other anti-American/anti-European interests. Where brutal third-world dictatorships voice strenuous objection to relatively minor violations of more civilized nations, while they slaaughter and brutalize their own citizens and minorities. Sudan, for example. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/EastTimor.asp Just a third source, which I also found to be a good overview of East Timor. None of these sources mention that East Timor is Catholic, and that the invading Indonesia is Muslim. But I think we both know that's an influential factor. The BBC link acknowledges that East Timor's independence represents a threatening presence of Europe in their region. But since the citizens of Timor are natives of the region, it is arguably East Timor's ties to European culture, and specifically Christianity, that Indonesia finds threatening. I found this overview of the clash of Islam and Christianity particularly relevant to this discussion: http://www.700club.com/cbnnews/commentary/islamhistory0212%2Easp It discusses in detail the events leading up to "Christian aggression" in the Crusades, detailing 400 years of Islamic brutality toward Christians in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. I know you have an aversion to Christian sources, but there are few places these events would be given fair treatment elsewhere in the media. There is a tendency to overplay Christian aggression, and downplay Islamic violence and aggression.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
I'll take a look at them, although I'm going to take the link to the 700 Club (Pat Robertson, isn't it?) with an enormous grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
August 28, 2003
Stage Is Set for Islamic World Renaissance
By Jonathan Power, Jonathan Power writes a column from London.
Too many observers look at Iraq as if it were a boxing match. Invasion — one up for the West, well at least for the United States and Britain. Sabotage an oil pipeline — one down for the West. And so it will go on. Only one thing is clear: In the cold, searching light of history, each of these incidents that absorb us will not even rank as footnotes.
Whatever one thinks of political scientist Samuel Huntington's book "The Clash of Civilizations," a competition of civi- lizations it nevertheless is and has long been. And we need to know that history, if only to absorb its greatest lesson: Military success on either side has never determined the direction of the civilization in question for more than a century or two. That is the lesson of the Crusades and it is also the lesson of the great Ottoman Empire, which started to lose intellectual momentum in the 15th century when its military reach was at its zenith.
Yet even if the Christian West is now in the ascendancy, it has never come to terms with how much it owes Islamic civilization. It was the Abbasid dynasty, founded after an internal Muslim coup in the year 750, that absorbed the Hellenic legacy at a time when, under Charlemagne, Europe intellectually withered.
In Charlemagne's Europe, reading and writing were not highly regarded, as they were in the Islamic world. The scientific, medical and philosophical learning of classical antiquity was almost entirely forgotten. Christian culture was backward and conservative, and intellectual life was dominated by the Bible and the Latin fathers of the church.
The Western world didn't begin to regain its intellectual luster until the 12th and 13th centuries, when it borrowed back from the Islamic world the scientific and intellectual knowledge it had forgotten about. Then the rise of the West took the Islamic world by surprise.
Once the 15th century was underway, Europe started to find its pace. This was the age of printing, exploration and Western hegemony. Even though the Ottoman Empire was emerging as the most powerful state in the world, after the conquest of Constantinople, Islam started to regress intellectually. Historians find it difficult to explain this contradiction, but it should act as a warning to Western hubris.
The West, particularly the United States, is militarily strong today, yet it seems not to have the political leverage of only a generation or so ago.
It does not help our standing in the world to say that Islam is not a religion of the sword, as George W. Bush and Tony Blair have, in a mistaken attempt to fudge history and appear conciliatory. In part it is. Muhammad himself became a warrior, and within 20 years of his death the Muslims had captured much of the Roman and Persian empires.
Neither does it help to imply, as both Bush and Blair have done, that the West is motivated by its Christian principles. Christ, in marked contrast to Muhammad, was a man of nonviolence, as were his early followers.
It was only when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire after the conversion of Constantine in 312 that it changed its philosophy. Then it became, and has long continued to be, as much a warrior religion as Islam. Bush's and Blair's breath would be better spent educating electorates as to the likelihood of the Islamic world regaining its foothold in history and becoming again a mighty intellectual, scientific and, inevitably, military force. In fact, this is what Saddam Hussein in his own idiosyncratic, violence-infused way was trying to bring off.
These are today's missteps, but this renaissance of Islam will come to pass in one not-too-distant day, if only because the roots of civilization in the Islamic world run deep. The brainpower is certainly there. It is just a question of the right political structures. In the modern world perhaps democracy can be the key to unlock the stored-up potential, as modern Turkey seems to be demonstrating.
And the West should unreservedly welcome it.
The West should take its cue from scholars of 15th century Renaissance humanism, especially the Spaniard John of Segovia and the German Nicholas of Cusa, as Richard Fletcher has suggested in his new book, "The Cross and the Crescent." John argued that it was important to find points of contact between Christianity and Islam — convergence, not divergence. Nicholas, who became a cardinal, argued that despite the differences between the two faiths it had to be realized that human knowledge could never be more than conjectural. If there is a truth, it can be understood only by means of mystical intuition.
These eternal questions of civilization are the ones we should be concentrating on. Which side is up and which is down in Iraq are, by comparison, truly ephemeral.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
I doubt there will be an Islamic renaissance any time in the short-term future, while Islam is in its current siege mentality state of existence. Also , I think most of what got me irritated on this thread is that someone could so blatantly regard his religion as superior to any other, and be so dismissive of the merits another religion. But looking at Dave's sources, I realise why: quote:
I found this overview of the clash of Islam and Christianity particularly relevant to this discussion:
http://www.700club.com/cbnnews/commentary/islamhistory0212%2Easp
It discusses in detail the events leading up to "Christian aggression" in the Crusades, detailing 400 years of Islamic brutality toward Cristians in Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
I know you have an aversion to Christian sources, but there are few places these events would be given fair treatment elsewhere in the media.
This link contains pure apologist propaganda. Its also wrong. Here is an academic perspective, agenda-free:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
quote:
In Western Europe the Crusades have traditionally been regarded by laypeople as heroic defensive enterprises, although not all historians have agreed. In the Islamic world, however, the Crusades are regarded to this day as cruel and savage onslaughts by Christendom on Islam, and so, for example, some of the rhetoric from Islamic fundamentalists uses the term "crusade" in this emotional context to refer to Western moves against them. Eastern Orthodox Christians also see the Crusades as attacks by the West, especially because of the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade.
There is an interesting symmetry between the terms "Crusade" and "Jihad". In the West the term "Crusade" has positive connotations (for example a politician might use rhetoric such as "a crusade against illegal drugs") while the term "Jihad" has negative connotations associated with fanatical holy war. In the Islamic world the term "Jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "Crusade" has the negative connotations described above. Thus to correctly translate nuances of meaning, the use of "Jihad" in Arabic should be translated to "Crusade" in English while use of the Arabic term for "Crusade" should be translated to "Jihad" in English.
In truth much of what the crusaders did was less than heroic. They committed atrocities not just against Muslims but also against Jews and Christians. For example the Fourth Crusade never made it to Palestine, but instead sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire. This crusade served to deepen the already hard feelings between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity. The Byzantine Empire eventually recovered Constantinople, but its strength never fully recovered, and the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans in 1453.
[quote]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
[quote]
After a break, the rest of the Crusader army marched on to Jerusalem, which had, in the meanwhile, been recaptured by the Fatimids of Egypt. After a lengthy siege in which the Crusaders probably suffered more than the citizens of the city (with 15,000 marching in starvation on July 8), Jerusalem was taken on July 15, 1099. The Crusaders massacred the whole Muslim and Jewish population, men, women and children. The Jews were burned alive in their main synagogue where they had fled; the Muslims were slaughtered in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and according to the accounts their blood ran ankle-deep.
There can be no apologism for this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
You seem to apologize for Muslim atrocities, while holding in greater contempt any casualties/atrocities by Christians. War is war, and atrocities occur on both sides in any war. I still hold to the argument that Islam at its core is violent, and that it spread violently from its beginning, in the 7th century. There are those who now (and throughout its history) have practiced Islam peacefully. But there can be no denying that Islam was spread from its inception by the sword, and has a long history of putting any dissenters to the sword. Whereas, Christianity, despite some abberrant atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity, is clearly peaceful at its core, and initially spread across the Middle East and Europe peacefully. "Free Will" is at the core of Christian faith. The freedom to accept or reject it. And again, the period of the Crusades (1099 A.D.to 1300 A.D., roughly) was NOT a period of Muslim peace toward the West, but a period where Muslims had invaded deep into Europe. A quick look at a map of Moorish or Ottoman empires from 1000 A.D. to almost 1600 A.D. makes my point unmistakeably clear. And I still hold to the argument of the 700 Club article you just quoted: That whatever atrocities were perpetrated on the Christian side during the Crusades ( clearly not something endorsed in Christian teachings) that there was provocation from the Muslim side over the previous several hundred years that finally brought about Christian retribution, that invoked the Crusades in 1099. It wasn't just Christians, out of the blue, deciding to expand their territory into the heart of Islam. There was Islamic provocation. Islam had invaded deep into Europe. And, I might add, Muslims had slaughtered the pre-existing Christian populations in the Middle East and North Africa, when "converting" those areas to Islam. And I might also add, Islam still spreads the same way across the Islamic world. Sudan has murdered between 2 and 3 million Christians and other non-Muslims since 1981 and ongoing. And Islam has contributed to, if not solely instigated, many other regional conflicts across the globe, from Liberia to Chechnya, to Palestine, to Iraq and Iran, to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East Timor and the Phillipines. And that is not even a complete list. Historically, and presently, Islam is a lightning-rod for fanatical violence, in the sacred cause of spreading its influence, and of maintaining its existing territory. Finally, I question the impartiality of your so-called superior "academic source". It is difficult to say with certainty what the motivations of the person or persons are who wrote the anonymously authored piece on the http://www.wikipedia.org/ website. It may be objective, or it may not. I don't like the way you assume that your sources are entirely objective and right, and simultaneously assume that my sources are not, simply because this one I quoted is from a clearly attributed Christian news source. Your http://www.wikepedia.org/ source may have ideological biases that are not as freely admitted. Everyone, academic or not, has opinions and biases. We're back to the same problem with your objective/subjective argument that we've had across several topics now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Wikipedia has a set of editors who cull biased entries. It is intended to be an agenda-free source of information: if there are arguments for and against a topic, both are included. Setting aside the mission of Wikipedia, reading both sides of an argument is more persuasive than a mere, bald assertion of facts which happen to fit a certain contention.
I'll write more in a few days - we've got a typhoon passing through here and I've got to get home...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
another murderous fundamentalist seeking martyrdomFunny how it's twice as disturbing when he's representing my own religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I don't consider him representative of anything I believe. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I still hold to the argument that Islam at its core is violent, and that it spread violently from its beginning. There are those who now (and throughout its history) have practiced Islam peacefully. But there can be no denying that it was spread from its inception by the sword, and has a long history of putting any dissenters to the sword.
Whereas, Christianity, despite some abberrant atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity, is clearly peaceful at its core, and initially spread across the Middle East and Europe peacefully.
Look, the Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all children of Abraham. We all have the same father, and the same God. Don't forget Ishmael was the first one born -- and through him the Muslim religion.
You know what I heard about Muslim culture the other day, DTWB? The first words a newborn hears are from the Koran. The same prayers he/she will hear for the rest of her life five times a day. I think that is one of the most beautiful and heartfelt things I have ever heard. I refuse to believe that any religion that encourages daily prayer (five times a day no less) and can produce some of the greatest inventions and artwork can be bad.
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
another murderous fundamentalist seeking martyrdom
Funny how it's twice as disturbing when he's representing my own religion.
Dang it, you beat me to it!
I want this guy's lights put out. I want his little candle extingished. You know how I said I hated the death penalty -- and I'd hate it if it were gone? This is one case where I think its the best thing to do. This guy has been addressing fan mail for several years while in jail. He shot a man that was not commiting a crime -- I still think abortion should become illegal, but this doctor was not breaking any law. Yeah, Jesus wants you to shoot people like that. Boy, aren't you a good little Christian. It makes me sick to think I agree with this creep in some abstract way. I want no part of his cause, however.
In both these cases, people are making judgements baised on some extreamist. I don't associate with extreamist. Even if they are Christian. I call these people 'Bible-humpers' because they take the word of God and twist it around to suit there needs. They may not get it in this life, but I am sure they'll be punished in the next.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
*sigh* God bless America.    That may or may not actually be a dwarf.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Zealotry doesn't seem to be confined to the Middle East, I see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Liberalism: All beliefs are created equal, but some are more equal and yield better poll results than others. ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) Should people be murdered because they practice abortions? Absolutely not! But should people who oppose abortion be lumped into the same category as such extremists?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
All religion is shit,self belief is far more important than belief in some imaginary deity.
At the end of the day all religions are the creation of man anyway,god didnt write the bible or whatever book other religions read.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I'd love to hear your reasoning there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
"GOD works in mysterious ways"
Isn´t that the line that has been used to justify "insert whatever you want"?
and isn´t it a quote based on christianity?
and did´nt christian fanatics mercilessly slaughter muslims in the middleeast at the end of the 1970´s (or was it the 1960´s, can´t remember)
If the Christian faith is really a peaceful religion at the root, then God isn´t the right God for this religion!
read the old testament and then say that this is peaceful religion!
it´s full of death torment and genocide!
besides, the notion that Islam is a violent religion because Islamic Nations invaded Europe is just crazy, that has nothing to do with religion. It´s simply a nation invading another nation and then claiming that God is on their side and simply just another display of the violent side of the human nature.
heh, humanity, you gotta´ love it!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
"Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch."
I think that sums up what to do about religious terrorist from EVERY denomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Islam preaches the death of all those that are not Muslim.........there is no grey area here. Deep down they are not good people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Now I know there are some peaceful muslims that live in western areas.....but they simply choose to ignore the parts of the Quran that preach war. The muslims in the middle east however.....even our "allies" won't shed any tears if we all go away.
|
|
|
|
|
