A different view on Islam

[Zwoop]

http://www.smh.com.au/specials/islam/

Check out the link above - it's a sad indictment upon the western media and (I would argue) that the only press about Islam or the Muslim world are cheap, sensationalised accounts designed more to induce fear and prejudice rather than tolerance and understanding. Kudos for someone in the Western media actually willing to present a much more open and honest presentation of how Muslim life does not have to be oppositional to western multicultural society. Have a read and please comment here, particularly at some of the blog/live chat questions and answers as well as the stories.

R.

[Lateralus]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c6b6_4707

[Mountain_Recluse]

http://www.smh.com.au/specials/islam/

Check out the link above - it's a sad indictment upon the western media and (I would argue) that the only press about Islam or the Muslim world are cheap, sensationalised accounts designed more to induce fear and prejudice rather than tolerance and understanding. Kudos for someone in the Western media actually willing to present a much more open and honest presentation of how Muslim life does not have to be oppositional to western multicultural society. Have a read and please comment here, particularly at some of the blog/live chat questions and answers as well as the stories.

R.The western press is minimizing or downright ignoring how barbaric Islam and Muslims have been and still are. So many apologists for Muslims do not understand that most Muslims and Islamic nations are committed to conquering non-Muslims, converting us, subjugating us into dhimmitude, (http://www.dhimmitude.org/) or killing us -- and only those three choices.
For more of what Islam really intends for the rest of us, please read
Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom (http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591023076)
or
Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic (http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Prophet-History-Theology-Impact/dp/1928653111)

[wildcat]

The western press is minimizing or downright ignoring how barbaric Islam and Muslims have been and still are. So many apologists for Muslims do not understand that most Muslims and Islamic nations are committed to conquering non-Muslims, converting us, subjugating us into dhimmitude, (http://www.dhimmitude.org/) or killing us -- and only those three choices.
For more of what Islam really intends for the rest of us, please read
Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom (http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591023076)
or
Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic (http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Prophet-History-Theology-Impact/dp/1928653111)
Islam and the muslims have nothing to do with anything.
Stop the bigotry and start to think.

[The Concertinist]

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

There are times in our lives when bigotry is needed. For example, your teenage daughter is whoring herself out. Do you listen to her side of things, weigh all matters, and make a rational judgement? Hell no, you become obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your opinion that she shouldn't be a whore.

Or...Bush just declared war on Iran (congress declares war of course, but Bush would get blamed). Do you listen to his side, interview some iranians, and come to a logical, balanced decision about its necessity? Hell no, you become obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your opinion that he shouldn't have gone to war.

Calling someone a bigot is a lame defense. It carries just slightly more weight than "poopy head."

[Zwoop]

The western press is minimizing or downright ignoring how barbaric Islam and Muslims have been and still are.

Go read your history. Christianity has some particularly repulsive acts of oppression and barbarity in its past.... you don't see the Western press remembering the atrocities of the Crusades that often do you? If you want modern examples of barbarism and suppression of human rights without due process or balanced media scrutiny, I can think of several very obvious ones (Iraq, Guantanamo Bay etc....).

Did you actually bother to read the articles (especially some of the Q&A blogs linked)? If you had, you would have seen some very reasonable answers to many of the more common misconceptions, and indeed some insightful self-analysis of the religion itself.



So many apologists for Muslims do not understand that most Muslims and Islamic nations are committed to conquering non-Muslims, converting us, subjugating us into dhimmitude, (http://www.dhimmitude.org/) or killing us -- and only those three choices.


I take offence at being called a muslim apologist for having the audacity to point out a media story that shows that religion does not have to mean conflict and fanaticism. In fact, the rarity of seeing such a series of articles that point out the differences between the mainstream muslim lifestyles and the radical sensationalist fodder that the western media puts out there was exactly my point. Maybe you need to apply a little more critical thinking to your own reading, rather than just blindly accepting the propaganda pieces you've linked.

Go back to FOX news, I'm sure they love your diatribes there.

[booyalab]

Go read your history. Christianity has some particularly repulsive acts of oppression and barbarity in its past.... you don't see the Western press remembering the atrocities of the Crusades that often do you? If you want modern examples of barbarism and suppression of human rights without due process or balanced media scrutiny, I can think of several very obvious ones (Iraq, Guantanamo Bay etc....).


1. The crusades were largely a defensive measure
2. The western press doesn't remember anything at all from the past
3. Think for a minute about key differences between so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Christian fundamentalists"

[Lateralus]

I doubt you're going to find many non-Muslims who want to be governed by shar'ia, but let's be realistic. ALL ideologies seek to expand (sometimes by force), even democracy. Muslims are in no position to be expanding their ideology by force. This has nothing to do with terrorism, which is a defense mechanism employed against an overwhelming powerful enemy.

All this talk of jihad and terrorism is ridiculous. If anything, Muslims are going to breed their way into domination. They won't have to do it by force. The question is, how many Muslims are we willing to kill, simply because they're Muslims.

[booyalab]

The question is, how many Muslims are we willing to kill, simply because they're Muslims.

hmm, interesting point! So, out of curiousity, how many muslims have we killed just because they're muslims so far?

[Mountain_Recluse]

Islam and the muslims have nothing to do with anything.
Stop the bigotry and start to think.
Stop the ignorance of history and start to read some history.
That history of Islam applies now since it explains what is happening now.
I've read far more than just the articles referenced on this thread.
Others should as well.

[The Concertinist]

Here's some documentation for you:
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

[Lateralus]

hmm, interesting point! So, out of curiousity, how many muslims have we killed just because they're muslims so far?
Neither this administration, nor any other, would ever admit this is a war on Islam. That would be political suicide. However, they're dying by the dozens every day. By creating instability, we are indirectly engaging in population control. Is this intentional? I can't say, but it's reality.

[Zwoop]

1. The crusades were largely a defensive measure

LOL. So was Germany's invasion of Poland then...



2. The western press doesn't remember anything at all from the past

Probably true. Also probably a good explanation of how they expect to get away with some of the stories they tell in this very same space...

I ask the same question of you - did you actually go and look at the series of articles referenced?



3. Think for a minute about key differences between so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Christian fundamentalists"

*think*

Nope, still can't see how this is relevant. Relgious fundamentalism, like any form of fundamentalism, is going to lead itself to extremist views. If reporting fundmentalist views is "balanced journalism" then we really are in a bad way....

[Cathy]

I tend to think that at least the media that I see in the UK is fairly careful about grouping "Islamic extreminsts" and "the Muslim community" seperately, and they do carry positively slanted religious stories about mainstream Islam as often as about other religions. However, perhaps other people don't listen to the distinction as carefully as I do, and it is true that there is a lot of coverage of "extremists".

Perhaps this tendency to hear the distinction in this country comes from listening to the decades of coverage of the conflict in Northern Ireland, where it was often important to distinguish between the IRA and the Catholics, and the UVF and the Protestants. Since most people on the British mainland are either Catholic, Protestant or from that background it was never really hard for people to distinguish between "folks like us" and "obsessive, vicious, terrorist bombers".

Perhaps in my personal case it also comes from my familly background - my father was a diplomat and specialist in the Middle East so I heard a lot about his views on the region and Islam, which were naturally somewhat more in depth. Also, there is the fact that I have had several Muslim collegues at one time or another. I found I liked and disliked them in about the same proportions as everyone else.

On the more general point, I tend to think that ANY political religion is a pretty dangerous thing.

As I see it, even if individual politicians or judges want to use religion for inspiration and personal guidance on what to do, they must still be able to justify their decisions in ethical and practical terms for the benefit of those of us who don't have their "personal hotline to God". If this is not the case "God says so" and "I say so" become (for practical purposes) indistinguishable and that is very dangerous.

This is partially because in my view "It is good because God says so" is a totally purile version of ethics. Moral reasoning depends on reason and an understanding of human nature. Inspiration and help with motivation could be divine (thoug personally I'm not religious), but moral reasoning is not. Therefore, there needs to be an independent argument which should be given when a law is made.

Finally, however, I do think it is very dangerous to privilege religion in a way that is almost like the way that race, gender and other involuntary traits are privileged. People choose their religion and their interpretation of it. Challenging this is not in any way equivalent to racism or sexisim etc, which are based on classifications that people have imposed on them by a combination of chance and society.

[Zwoop]

Stop the ignorance of history and start to read some history.
That history of Islam applies now since it explains what is happening now.
I've read far more than just the articles referenced on this thread.
Others should as well.

The articles in this thread are far from definitive about Islamic life. What strikes me about them is that a voice is given to a much more reasonable and human view of what living in a multicultural society can mean, without the sensationalism, ideology and prejudice attached. My original motivation in posting these links was to show a counterpoint to all the "Islam is evil, Muslims are terrorists" posts that seem to dominate on this forum (and, sadly, in most western media representations of islamic society). Good journalism and good research ideally should show a balanced view, and sadly we seem to have lost this.

In Australia, we have more than our fair share of zealots and fundamentalists that represent a tiny percentage of the opinion of the muslim community, but make great copy for tabloid fodder because they are so easy to get a quote from that can be used to enrage the community. What I'm saddened by is the fact that an interesting perspective that looks positively at forms of religious tolerance and cultural integration is also sabotaged by those who only seem interested in listening to the lunatic fringe on both sides of the issues.

[Stoned_Rider]

it's a sad indictment upon the western media and (I would argue) that the only press about Islam or the Muslim world are cheap, sensationalised accounts designed more to induce fear and prejudice rather than tolerance and understanding.
All I'm going to say is that you really need to check out the BBC Guide on Islam (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/). And that's just one example.

[Zwoop]

All I'm going to say is that you really need to check out the BBC Guide on Islam (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/). And that's just one example.

Good site!

[Stoned_Rider]

Yeah that's my point.

[LongSilence]

LOL. So was Germany's invasion of Poland then...


Errr... no. Make a comparison thats not idiotic like... Britain declaring war on Germany when they invaded Belgium.



Nope, still can't see how this is relevant. Relgious fundamentalism, like any form of fundamentalism, is going to lead itself to extremist views. If reporting fundmentalist views is "balanced journalism" then we really are in a bad way....

Ask yourself this- historically, the hallowed Christian martyrs are the ones that die for their cause... without resorting to killing their enemy- can the same be said about most Muslim martyrs?

[The Concertinist]

It amazes me that anyone can think the media is too HARD on islam.

[Zwoop]

It amazes me that anyone can think the media is too HARD on islam.

It saddens me to think that people think demonising a set of people based on their religious identification should be the role of the media....





Ask yourself this- historically, the hallowed Christian martyrs are the ones that die for their cause... without resorting to killing their enemy- can the same be said about most Muslim martyrs?


Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam.... and a very well respected one at that.

[celesul]

I think that those who are condemning Islam need a history lesson.

Historically, Islam was far more moderate, and, as I learned from books and my rabbi, Islamic states were far friendlier towards Jews than Christian ones. During the Inquisition, Jews that were able and whose families were able fled East to Islamic states. There, they were not equal to Muslims, but they were not persecuted as they were in Christian countries.

It is not religion but land disputes that cause the fighting. The leaders use religion as an excuse, but that is because it makes it more appealing to the average ignoramus. You hear about arabic terrorists. Muslims live all around the world. There are large populations in Indonesia and Malaysia, but you don't hear about them attacking other countries because of religion.

And on a slightly different note, the Crusades were not self defense. They theoretically were to obtain Jerusalem for the Christians (which I don't see as self-defense), but after the second crusade, were simply elaborate excuses for plundering.

Fundamentalists of any religion are bad and tend to be violent. I am Jewish and admit freely that fundamentalist Jews are not good, same as fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and everyone else...

And I like the links Zwoop and Stoned_rider. :highfive:

[inspectorgadget]

Stop the ignorance of history and start to read some history.
That history of Islam applies now since it explains what is happening now.
I've read far more than just the articles referenced on this thread.
Others should as well.

The religious extremism we are seeing coming out of Islamic countries right now has mostly to do with intense poverty... people are uneducated, and those who want to control others are using Religion to manipulate that control. We've seen it throughout history with every single religion. Islam is no different from Christianity or Judaism or Mormonism or whatever the fuck you want to list.

I mean, sure, I think Islam provides a few more tools than some of the others and that they can be a bit more prone to violent extremism than the others but I don't think it's all that substantial. I just say that because Mohammed was a fucking Warrior back in his day and Jesus was something entirely different. But as someone did point out earlier, Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam - plus, Islam has historically been more tolerant of other views... when the Arabian Peninsula was finally completely taken over by Arabs, due to the social cohesion that Islam ultimately provided them, they never tried to "convert by the sword." All they did was tax those who weren't muslims for not being muslims, and let them keep their culture.

So... poverty == less education == prone to more fundamentalism == prone to more violence.

[celesul]

I think that inspectorgadget neatly got to a central issue. Poverty leads to ignorance leads to violence, regardless of religion. religion is an excuse, not a cause. True, some religions, such as Buddhism, advocate pacifism and don't lend themselves to it at all, but the religion has less to do with religious extrmist violence than ignorance.


"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Lateralus]

All they did was tax those who weren't muslims for not being muslims, and let them keep their culture.
The Jizya was an extremely low tax rate, by todays standards, something on the order of 2%. It was hardly a burden. And while it is discriminatory, by today's standards, it was actually quite tolerant for it's time (when it was introduced). In many cases, non-Muslims were not encouraged to convert, at all, so the Muslims state could collect more tax revenue.

[Samurai Drifter]

First of all, late to this thread.

Second of all, currently, Muslim is easily the most violent religion in power. And contrary what some say, I know the Qua'ran does teach violence. I recall reading an essay on the University of California's website a while ago that cited verses of it that clearly, clearly called for violence against non-muslims. Said essay was written by a Muslim scholar. If I can dig it up I'll post a link.

The Christians committed more than their share of atrocities in the past; but now it's the Muslims, and people need to take their fingers out from their ears, stop saying "lalalalala I can't hear you," and accept that.

[Ferrus]

1. The crusades were largely a defensive measure
Hahaha. If you mean for the recapture of Jerusalem, that is a ridiculous argument. The Muslims had taken Jerusalem 500 years prior to the crusades, and indeed they had not taken it from any country in West Europe (merely . The First Crusade was a spontaneous attack, primarily from North France and West Germany (with North Italian naval aid) at the behest of Urban II who desired a new, supranational, role for the papacy - remembering this to be the era of Gregorian Papal reform. He saw it as an agency by which to effect the unification of Christian warriors who had previously been dashing each others' brains out - and it proved rather more successful than prior attempts such as the 'Peace of God'. There were claims that the Muslims were denying entry and abusing Christian pilgrims, and undoubtedly some of this occurred, but not on the scale the histrionic medieval chroniclers would suggest. But you seem to ignore two essential elements of circumstance here - firstly the Caliph had power over Jersualem and had ruled for 500 years - secondly Christians were largely allowed free passage there. How do you think Christendom would have reacted should Muslims have desired free passage to Rome? Certainly with a great deal less forbearance.

In any case the First Crusade should have miscarried as all the other crusades (barring the Third which was more of a stalement) did, but the small Christian force was able to defeat so many of its foes (especially in the miracule that was the battle of Antioch) because the Islamic empire was disunited. The First crusade was a victim of its own success. The massacre that attended the fall of Jerusalem united previously opposed and even antipathetic groups such as the Sunni and Shias, Cairo and Damascus, and the Jews. It even made the Christians in the Byzantine empire and the Islamic empire itself chary of the Western Christians - and Byzantium had much to fear from the Crusaders for it was dealt a mortally wounding blow by them in the farcical 4th Crusade.

2. The western press doesn't remember anything at all from the past
Very true, although it does remember 'big events' from the last 100 years in quite a distorted fashion.

3. Think for a minute about key differences between so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Christian fundamentalists"
Yes, of course they are substanitially different, both because of their inherent creeds and the political contexts they are woven into. This notwithstanding, a cogent argument could be made that predicated a specific psychology that forms the rationale for both.

[booyalab]

Hahaha. If you mean for the recapture of Jerusalem, that is a ridiculous argument. The Muslims had taken Jerusalem 500 years prior to the crusades, and indeed they had not taken it from any country in West Europe (merely . The First Crusade was a spontaneous attack, primarily from North France and West Germany (with North Italian naval aid) at the behest of Urban II who desired a new, supranational, role for the papacy - remembering this to be the era of Gregorian Papal reform. He saw it as an agency by which to effect the unification of Christian warriors who had previously been dashing each others' brains out - and it proved rather more successful than prior attempts such as the 'Peace of God'. There were claims that the Muslims were denying entry and abusing Christian pilgrims, and undoubtedly some of this occurred, but not on the scale the histrionic medieval chroniclers would suggest. But you seem to ignore two essential elements of circumstance here - firstly the Caliph had power over Jersualem and had ruled for 500 years - secondly Christians were largely allowed free passage there. How do you think Christendom would have reacted should Muslims have desired free passage to Rome? Certainly with a great deal less forbearance.


I'm not reading any more than the first sentence.

Over a course of 4 centuries, Islamic warriors conquered 2/3 of the old Christian world. The emperor of Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to help them in the east and the crusades were born.

[booyalab]

This notwithstanding, a cogent argument could be made that predicated a specific psychology that forms the rationale for both.
that's retarded.

1. the fact that you make that assumption
2. the fact that you think all christians and muslims are identical psychologically, despite the differences among followers within EACH religion and the major contrast in the dogmas/histories of each.

[LongSilence]

Hahaha. If you mean for the recapture of Jerusalem, that is a ridiculous argument. The Muslims had taken Jerusalem 500 years prior to the crusades, and indeed they had not taken it from any country in West Europe (merely . The First Crusade was a spontaneous attack, primarily from North France and West Germany (with North Italian naval aid) at the behest of Urban II who desired a new, supranational, role for the papacy - remembering this to be the era of Gregorian Papal reform. He saw it as an agency by which to effect the unification of Christian warriors who had previously been dashing each others' brains out - and it proved rather more successful than prior attempts such as the 'Peace of God'. There were claims that the Muslims were denying entry and abusing Christian pilgrims, and undoubtedly some of this occurred, but not on the scale the histrionic medieval chroniclers would suggest. But you seem to ignore two essential elements of circumstance here - firstly the Caliph had power over Jersualem and had ruled for 500 years - secondly Christians were largely allowed free passage there. How do you think Christendom would have reacted should Muslims have desired free passage to Rome? Certainly with a great deal less forbearance.

In any case the First Crusade should have miscarried as all the other crusades (barring the Third which was more of a stalement) did, but the small Christian force was able to defeat so many of its foes (especially in the miracule that was the battle of Antioch) because the Islamic empire was disunited. The First crusade was a victim of its own success. The massacre that attended the fall of Jerusalem united previously opposed and even antipathetic groups such as the Sunni and Shias, Cairo and Damascus, and the Jews. It even made the Christians in the Byzantine empire and the Islamic empire itself chary of the Western Christians - and Byzantium had much to fear from the Crusaders for it was dealt a mortally wounding blow by them in the farcical 4th Crusade.

Very true, although it does remember 'big events' from the last 100 years in quite a distorted fashion.

Yes, of course they are substanitially different, both because of their inherent creeds and the political contexts they are woven into. This notwithstanding, a cogent argument could be made that predicated a specific psychology that forms the rationale for both.

Actually, A Crusade had been an idea the Papacy had entertained before Urban II rather remarkably managed to get the enormous undertaking of the First Crusade organised and underway. You could say that if it was provoked by any outside actions it was those of the 'mad' caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah who freely practiced the art of whimsical paranoid persecution and had Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre obliterated. Even though this happened way back in 1009 it was still a pretty bitter pill for the Christians to swallow.

Also, lets not forget that Jerusalem is a city of tremendous importance to all the three monotheistic faiths. Christians may not have ever governed its lands before but it was perhaps the most powerful icon in the mind of any Christian as it was the site of Christ's most 'famous' acts. It held the site of Christ's Tomb and possessed the one True Cross to name but a few of its monuments. This was no Iraq- the Church may have exaggerated the atrocities taking place [or re-used expired news] but its followers truly cared about its security. Of course they'd largely tolerate anyone in charge of it but only as long as they took care of its artifacts and importantly of the hundreds of pilgrims who regularly turned up.

As far as the Byzantines go- they didn't much trust anyone before the Crusades and had never held much regard for the Western Europeans anyway. Of course, they put that aside and welcomed the idea of an army coming [that as booya said they had been asking for for quite some time] to help waylay the encroaching Arabs but then grew irritated and concerned that they'd have little control over the lands the Crusaders 'took back' for them. Thus there was a great farce when the Emperor demanded an oath of all the incoming leaders and wouldn't let them move on together till they had sworn it. Of course as more and more unruly low class crusaders piled in he realised keeping them in the city was more hassle than it was worth.

In the end, the first three Crusades are really quite interesting events in history simply because they demonstrate medieval warfare under rather different circumstances and the extraordinary acts that men can achieve under them.

[Ferrus]

Over a course of 4 centuries, Islamic warriors conquered 2/3 of the old Christian world. The emperor of Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to help their brothers and sisters in the east and the crusades were born.
Oh please. The Islamic empire conquered land from the Persian empire after they had already taken most of it from the Byzantines. Conquered 2/3 of the old Christian world... yes, just as the Romans, and the Greeks, and many other groups had done long before. The Muslim occupation of Jerusalem was almost half a millenia old by 1099.

The Emperor of Constantinople requested help against the Turks in the East, after the loss at Manzikert, yes. He was expecting a small group of warriors who would aid him in Anatolia - primarily Nicen - he did not expect large hordes of warriors who planned to descend of Jerusalem as he had no intention of 'reclaiming' that. And the war between Muslims and Christians was not one of simply conquest for centuries - the Byzantines often dealt with the Muslims, and many Muslim factions co-operated with them against them.

Brothers and Sisters? You do realise the Roman Church considered the Greeks to be abject schismatics for rejecting the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the other 4 patriarchs? You do realise they had no intention of 'helping' them - the truth is the marauding crusaders did much harm to their lands - unless it also served the purpose of the Western Church, and the petty lords who saw a chance for glory and new kingdoms.

Actually, A Crusade had been an idea the Papacy had entertained before Urban II rather remarkably managed to get the enormous undertaking of the First Crusade organised and underwayTo an extent, but it had never had the social capital it needed to do so till then. For example, in the Caroliginian age the Papacy was relatively week compared with the Emperors, thus could not organise men in the same fashion.

Of course they'd largely tolerate anyone in charge of it but only as long as they took care of its artifacts and importantly of the hundreds of pilgrims who regularly turned up.
Such a thought was heresy in Medieval Europe. It didn't matter how anyone looked after its artifacts, it mattered who they were.

As far as the Byzantines go- they didn't much trust anyone before the Crusades and had never held much regard for the Western Europeans anyway. Of course, they put that aside and welcomed the idea of an army coming [that as booya said they had been asking for for quite some time] to help waylay the encroaching Arabs.
Actually it was Turks by this time, the Arabs had shown only mild interest in lands above what is modern day Lebanon.

[booyalab]

Oh please. The Islamic empire conquered land from the Persian empire after they had already taken most of it from the Byzantines. Conquered 2/3 of the old Christian world... yes, just as the Romans, and the Greeks, and many other groups had done long before. The Muslim occupation of Jerusalem was almost half a millenia old by 1099.

The Emperor of Constantinople requested help against the Turks in the East, after the loss at Manzikert, yes. He was expecting a small group of warriors who would aid him in Anatolia - primarily Nicen - he did not expect large hordes of warriors who planned to descend of Jerusalem as he had no intention of 'reclaiming' that. And the war between Muslims and Christians was not one of simply conquest for centuries - the Byzantines often dealt with the Muslims, and many Muslim factions co-operated with them against them.

Brothers and Sisters? You do realise the Roman Church considered the Greeks to be abject schismatics for rejecting the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the other 4 patriarchs? You do realise they had no intention of 'helping' them - the truth is the marauding crusaders did much harm to their lands - unless it also served the purpose of the Western Church, and the petty lords who saw a chance for glory and new kingdoms.

let me know when you've familiarized yourself with the definition of jihad.

[Ferrus]

let me know when you've familiarized yourself with the definition of jihad.
You like your glib responses, eh? Have you considered trying to defend yourself with... ah I'll let you familiarise yourself with the definition of 'fact' first.

Jihad is largely irrelevant in this context anyway, as most of the Muslim conquests were primarily driven by political and economic imperatives, not religious. And by 1099 there was no wide spread invasions occurring, most of these had died out after the 8th century and the battle of Tours.

[celesul]

You could say that if it was provoked by any outside actions it was those of the 'mad' caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah who freely practiced the art of whimsical paranoid persecution and had Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre obliterated. Even though this happened way back in 1009 it was still a pretty bitter pill for the Christians to swallow.

Also, lets not forget that Jerusalem is a city of tremendous importance to all the three monotheistic faiths. Christians may not have ever governed its lands before but it was perhaps the most powerful icon in the mind of any Christian as it was the site of Christ's most 'famous' acts. This was no Iraq- the Church may have exaggerated the atrocities taking place [or re-used expired news] but its followers truly cared about its security. Of course they'd largely tolerate anyone in charge of it but only as long as they took care of its artifacts and importantly of the hundreds of pilgrims who regularly turned up.

The Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by an insane caliph, and was soom rebuilt by the Muslims. Pope Urban II knew this, but still wanted it to continue. And the Muslims allowed pilgrammage as long as the pilgrims were unarmed, which is a very reasonable requirement since they wanted to preserve the peace. At the time, they were very accepting of other cultures, far more than the Christians.


The religious extremism we are seeing coming out of Islamic countries right now has mostly to do with intense poverty... people are uneducated, and those who want to control others are using Religion to manipulate that control. We've seen it throughout history with every single religion. Islam is no different from Christianity or Judaism or Mormonism or whatever the fuck you want to list.

Islam has historically been more tolerant of other views... when the Arabian Peninsula was finally completely taken over by Arabs, due to the social cohesion that Islam ultimately provided them, they never tried to "convert by the sword." All they did was tax those who weren't muslims for not being muslims, and let them keep their culture.

So... poverty == less education == prone to more fundamentalism == prone to more violence.

And this sums it up nicely. Religion is merely an excuse that most do not look into too closely, thus preserving a facade of devotion rather than greed. The followers are unfortunate and couldn't tell the difference ether way. The true cause of all this is ignorance, caused by poverty.

There is no historical trend of oppresion of other cultures, quite the opposite. This indicates that it is not the religion, but the current circumstances. They don't forcefully convert; they taxed. And that was smal, easily affordable, and less than normal taxes other places. They accepted all cultures. In the House of Reason, an important place of thought, they even accepted non-Muslims. Maimonides, a Jewish scholar, worked with Muslims. In Europe, the Christians slaughtered any non-Christians.

The only cause of this violence is ignorance and it's contributors. Religion serves as an excuse, not a cause. This true for all religions (except perhaps Buddhism, which urges pacifism. But Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all lend themselves to violence).

[NoahFence]

There's quite a bit of violence in the Bible, you know. If you insist that this is "You Should" instead of "They Did", and actually carry out the execution of adulterers, say, you'll be just as violent and extremist as any muslim.

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Should I take the word "Destroyed" to mean literally physically reduced to unrecognizable bits? Should I help this come to pass by personally destroying anyone who refuses to hear the Word of God?

Or perhaps socially destroyed, shunned? Left alone, in other words. Perhaps this is saying that anyone who does not follow the way of the lamb will simply destroy themselves through their own actions? Perhaps it is a grim warning of what will happen if you persist in your evil ways, rather than instructions on how I should dip the infidels in boiling oil?

Islam may be interpreted peacefully. The fact that a disturbingly huge chunk of muslims do not has nothing to do with the religion. It is entirely a product of their culture. They WANT to be violent, and justify it as they please. The same thing has been done by Christians over the years, and frankly, by Jews as well, though it's been a while since they had the kind of power it takes to shove your will down someone's throat.

[celesul]

But, NoahFence, it is not that it is Islamic culture that is violent, only Arabic. There are large Muslim populations in southeast Asia that do not advocate the same violence as in the middle east. But I agree, it is completely separate from the religion.

Almost all religions have a history of violence. Christianity's and Islam's is more pronounced because there are more followers. Judaism is much smaller, but has it's times as well. History shows that the cause of violence is ignorance, and religion is merely used as a ploy to gain followers.

[LongSilence]

Funny, my Bible's Acts 3:23 has 'must be extirpated from Israel' which would very much suggest a sort of banishment rather than physical destruction.

Unfortunately for lovers of violence Christ himself did no violence to any other man, not even the ones who openly sought to kill him. The worst the guy did, it is said, was throw some tables of money over. If people want to think they are 'doing only what God Himself would do' [which can be in itself the highest sacrilege] they really do have to turn to the Old Testament to see the Guy and His people razing cities and crushing enemies. Hell, even the insanity of Revelations has the good believers taking quite a beating for a real long time before God Himself comes down to sort the mess out.

But... like I try to say- give anyone enough power and sooner or later they'll start compelling people to do things their way. The Muslims, as a force, hadn't really got themselves enough power to start exerting their will on the people in all their lands but they had begun to start flexing their muscles to 'encourage' people to adopt Islam.

Anyway, look back at history and ask yourselves: "How did the differences in the Islamic and Christian Church structures alternately influence the political, social and perhaps economic developments of their cultures?"

[Stoned_Rider]

But, NoahFence, it is not that it is Islamic culture that is violent, only Arabic.
uhh... Taliban? London July 7 bombers? etc etc?


I think that those who are condemning Islam need a history lesson.
http://www.historyofjihad.com

[HilbertSpace]

There are large Muslim populations in southeast Asia that do not advocate the same violence as in the middle east. But I agree, it is completely separate from the religion.

SE Asia is also home to Abu Sayyaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sayyaf), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front), Jemaah Islamiyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiah), Front Pembela Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Pembela_Islam), and the Laskar Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laskar_Jihad).

Here's an NPR report (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/asia/index.html)from a couple of years ago on militant Islamic terrorist groups in SE Asia.

[Huston]

The Jizya was an extremely low tax rate, by todays standards, something on the order of 2%. It was hardly a burden. And while it is discriminatory, by today's standards, it was actually quite tolerant for it's time (when it was introduced).

Zakat (the poor tax) is 2% that the Muslims paid. According to some Hadiths, the Jews were taxed 50%. Still not much considering others areas at the time, but a significant difference compared to 2% for Muslims.


In many cases, non-Muslims were not encouraged to convert, at all, so the Muslims state could collect more tax revenue.

When most of your tax base comes from them (acounted for 80% in the Ottoman Empire), why would you take it away.

[celesul]

SE Asia is also home to Abu Sayyaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sayyaf), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front), Jemaah Islamiyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiah), Front Pembela Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Pembela_Islam), and the Laskar Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laskar_Jihad).

Here's an NPR report (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/asia/index.html)from a couple of years ago on militant Islamic terrorist groups in SE Asia.

I'm sorry, I simply meant to imply that it is less prevalent overall. I did study a bit about them, but what I learned indicated that it was land disputes. Regardless, they do not violently attack other countries to the extent that arabs do, or the media doesn't indicate that. Sure, you find it on the web, but you don't find it in newspapers as frequently. That is significant because it shows that they don't affect complete outsiders the same way.
I learned about a rebellion in Acheh, Indonesia, but it was also primarily a land dispute, as were many of your links. Religion is rarely a true cause, usually just an excuse. However, Islam (and Christianity and Judaism) are almost absurdly open to interpretation.

(for example, to have a bat mitzvah in Judaism, you have to study a specific portion of the Torah and comment on it. In mine, god kept losing his temper at the people because they didn't stop complaining. I said that made him easier to relate to, because if he was perfect, he wouldn't be perfect. If that makes sense... My rabbi and congregation loved it. My aunt and grandma tried to aviod mentioning it because they thought it was disrespectful. And my portion was a very straightforward one).

Everyone sees their religion through the lens of their past experiences. And for the ones that are so open to interpretation? The interpretations range from "world peace" to "killing all who don't agree" from the same text.

[Lateralus]

Zakat (the poor tax) is 2% that the Muslims paid. According to some Hadiths, the Jews were taxed 50%. Still not much considering others areas at the time, but a significant difference compared to 2% for Muslims.
Zakat is not a poor tax, it's a voluntary tax on all Muslims. It's considered religious duty, and it was higher than 2%, but lower than 10%, depending on the jurisdiction.

There are conflicting accounts on the Jizya. I gave the account most Muslims scholars would give. If you want the opposite extreme, check out this article (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003260.php). This website is pretty anti-Islamic, so it's safe to say they're going to take the worst interpretation of every law. It states that they had a graduated tax system. The rich would pay 48 silver tankahs, merchants would pay 24 silver tankahs, and the poor would pay 12 silver tankahs. This appears to be a flat fee. Without income data, I can't state the tax rate.

[Huston]

Zakat is not a poor tax, it's a voluntary tax on all Muslims. It's considered religious duty, and it was higher than 2%, but lower than 10%, depending on the jurisdiction.

No, Zakat is a obligatory tax that Muslims pay to the poor. That is why it is called the poor tax, or the giving of alms. The voluntary tax is Sadaqah given out at Ramadan.

http://www.alislam.org/pillars/zakat.html (Yes an heretical sect, but it is not any different on the matter)

Quite frankly I find obligatory charity an oxy-moron.


There are conflicting accounts on the Jizya. I gave the account most Muslims scholars would give. If you want the opposite extreme, check out this article. This website is pretty anti-Islamic, so it's safe to say they're going to take the worst interpretation of every law. It states that they had a graduated tax system. The rich would pay 48 silver tankahs, merchants would pay 24 silver tankahs, and the poor would pay 12 silver tankahs. This appears to be a flat fee. Without income data, I can't state the tax rate.

You really didn?t check the anti-Islamic sites hard enough. Yes, you may bring historical documentation, but who cares when you have the religious documentation. The Jews of Khaybar were the first people to become dhimmi. Half of what they produced went to the Muslims

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 550:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet gave (the land of) Khaibar to the Jews (of Khaibar) on condition that they would work on it and cultivate it and they would have half of its yield.

[Lateralus]

No, Zakat is a obligatory tax that Muslims pay to the poor. That is why it is called the poor tax, or the giving of alms. The voluntary tax is Sadaqah given out at Ramadan.
Eh, obligatory is used very loosely. Muslims were supposed to pay Zakat, but it was not enforced. Meaning, there was no Muslim IRS going around making sure everyone paid their share. I would assume there was, instead, social pressure to pay. There was forceful collection of Jizya.


You really didn?t check the anti-Islamic sites hard enough. Yes, you may bring historical documentation, but who cares when you have the religious documentation. The Jews of Khaybar were the first people to become dhimmi. Half of what they produced went to the Muslims

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 550:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet gave (the land of) Khaibar to the Jews (of Khaibar) on condition that they would work on it and cultivate it and they would have half of its yield.
Mohammed was alive at this time. This was before the concept of Jizya was even established. I wouldn't even consider this to be Jizya, but if you want to, go for it. I don't think it's an intellectually honest interpretation.

[Huston]

Eh, obligatory is used very loosely. Muslims were supposed to pay Zakat, but it was not enforced. Meaning, there was no Muslim IRS going around making sure everyone paid their share. I would assume there was, instead, social pressure to pay.

Used loosely, you apparently are not aware we are talking about a religion here that says you will go to hell if you do not. So looks like it is enforced, religiously speaking. Even if in a rational world it is not, because obviously hell does not exist, despite how many people believe in unsubstantiated claims such as hell, heaven, god, prophets, etc.


Mohammed was alive at this time. This was before the concept of Jizya was even established. I wouldn't even consider this to be Jizya, but if you want to, go for it. I don't think it's an intellectually honest interpretation.

The concept of Jizya was after Muhammad? Ok, so he just decided to use the word in the Quran, and on a completely different note implemented a tax on the Jews of Khaibar who willfully submitted to the Muslims in order to stay on what was their land.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Maybe if you say that the concept of jizya changed after Muhammad, ok.

[charred_heart]

as far as I know, the verdict on Banu Qurayza (the Jewish tribe of KIhaibar) was made on unique circumstances. I found an article that explains what most muslims are taught about the incident:

At Muhammad's persuasion, Pagan tribes, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other in the event there was an attack on the city. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody but predictable balance of power among the tribes.


Banu Qurayza broke this pact during a crucial battle:

...
As the siege around Medina began to last longer than expected, Quraysh sent Huyayy bin Akhtab, the leader of Banu Nadir (http://www.answers.com/topic/banu-nadir), to the Banu Qurayza (http://www.answers.com/topic/banu-qurayza), hoping to win their support. The Banu Qurayza's crucial location on the south side of Medina would allow the confederates to attack Muhammad from two sides. Banu Qurayza were hesitant to join the Meccan alliance since they had earlier made a pact of alliance with Muhammad. Because of this pact Muhammad (http://www.answers.com/topic/muhammad) had not bothered to make defensive preparations along the Muslims' border with the tribe.[5] (http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-the-trench#wp-_note-4)
...
The three men did not return with good news. They reported to Muhammad their findings in a metaphor: "Adal and Qarah".Maududi (http://www.answers.com/topic/sayyid-abul-ala-maududi) believes this metaphor meant that the Qurayza were about to kill the Muslims like the people of Adal and Qarah did after making a false pact of peace with Muhammad.[7] (http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-the-trench#wp-_note-6) In the third week of the siege, Banu Qurayza signaled to the Quraysh-led coalition their readiness to act against Muhammad, although they demanded that the Meccans provide them with hostages first, to ensure that they would not be abandoned to face Muhammad alone, if the battle did not go as The Meccans desired. Yet, The Meccans refused to give the Banu Qurayza any hostages, and considered this to be an insult. Shortly after that, when the siege began to be too much for the besieged Muslims to take, a violent, cold gale wind set on the camp of the Meccans in the north of Medina, and the Meccans immediately gave up the fight and marched home, to the bitterness of the Meccan combatants, and the horror and dismay of Banu Qurayza .


after the battle:

The Muslims now commenced a 25-day siege against the Banu Qurazya's fortress. Finally, both sides agreed to arbitration. A former ally of the Banu Qurayza, an Arab chief named Sa'd ibn Mu'adh (http://www.answers.com/topic/sa-d-ibn-mua-dh), now a Muslim, was chosen as judge. Sa'd, one of the few casualties of battle, would soon die of his wounds. If the earlier tribal relations had been in force, he would have certainly spared the Banu Qurayza. His fellow chiefs urged him to pardon these former allies, but he refused. He saw that Qurayza had breached the Convention of Medina and failed to honor their agreement to protect the town, and thus they had betrayed The Prophet. Sa'd asked what the punishment is for treachery in the Jewish tradition and said that whatever their faith would be that of their law(The Torah dictates death for those who betray). Sa'd officially ruled that all the men should be killed, and the women and children enslaved. Prophet Muhammad accepted his judgment, and declared that Sa'd's judgment had coincided with God's judgment. The next day, according to Muslim sources, a number between 700-900 Jewish men of the Banu Qurayza were executed in the market of Medina. However, those Jewish men who had rejected the treachery were not executed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-the-trench


I don't know enough to give an opinion on this part of Islam's history, but it's clear that what happened to Banu Qurayza was not standard policy.

[Huston]

I don't know enough to give an opinion on this part of Islam's history, but it's clear that what happened to Banu Qurayza was not standard policy.

Yes, apparently you don't, you mixed up the Battles, you qouted Battle of the Trench, not the battle of Khaibar.

To qoute from the same site:

The Jews were able to negotiate an agreement under which they were to remain in the oasis, cultivating their land. Muhammad also ordered the restitution to the Jews of their holy scriptures.[1] However, from now on they were required to hand over one-half of the produce to the Muslims. The pact didn't define the situation of the Jews, nor specify whether the Jews were to remain owners of the land.[1] Modern historians suggest that the lack of precision was an ex-post justification for the subsequent expulsion of Jews from Khaybar. The agreement with the Jews of Khaybar served as an important precedent for Islamic Law in determining the status of dhimmis, i.e. non-Muslims who fell under Muslim rule.[1][13][14]

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-khaybar

(On an irrelevanrt note: why is answers.com the same same as wikipedia, who compying who?)

But yes, the Battle of the Trench is unique, the Jews "betrayed" the Muslim's and were punished according to Jewish law.

[Lateralus]

Used loosely, you apparently are not aware we are talking about a religion here that says you will go to hell if you do not. So looks like it is enforced, religiously speaking. Even if in a rational world it is not, because obviously hell does not exist, despite how many people believe in unsubstantiated claims such as hell, heaven, god, prophets, etc.
Oh please. There's a big difference between the state enforcing a law and punishment in the afterlife. Isn't that something that so many atheists despise about monotheism, that they go around enforcing "God's law"?


The concept of Jizya was after Muhammad? Ok, so he just decided to use the word in the Quran, and on a completely different note implemented a tax on the Jews of Khaibar who willfully submitted to the Muslims in order to stay on what was their land.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Maybe if you say that the concept of jizya changed after Muhammad, ok.
The point is, you're using Khaybar as a representative of the norm, when it was an extreme exception to the norm. If you have other examples of this tax rate being 50%, then by all means, present them. By and large, Jizya was nowhere close to the 50% you claim.

And yes, many things changed about Islam after Mohammed died.

[charred_heart]

Yes, apparently you don't, you mixed up the Battles, you qouted Battle of the Trench, not the battle of Khaibar.yeah... I guess I'll get into these debates when I have enough background ..

it's just that when you say Khaibar to a muslim that story is the first thing that comes to their mind.

[Huston]

Oh please. There's a big difference between the state enforcing a law and punishment in the afterlife. Isn't that something that so many atheists despise about monotheism, that they go around enforcing "God's law"?

Who cares about what atheists think.


The point is, you're using Khaybar as a representative of the norm,

That depend on what you determine as the norm.


when it was an extreme exception to the norm.

An exception which has yet to be shown. What would that extreme exception be? To form a precendent afterwards?

[Raxr]

The religious extremism we are seeing coming out of Islamic countries right now has mostly to do with intense poverty... people are uneducated, and those who want to control others are using Religion to manipulate that control. We've seen it throughout history with every single religion. Islam is no different from Christianity or Judaism or Mormonism or whatever the fuck you want to list.

I mean, sure, I think Islam provides a few more tools than some of the others and that they can be a bit more prone to violent extremism than the others but I don't think it's all that substantial. I just say that because Mohammed was a fucking Warrior back in his day and Jesus was something entirely different. But as someone did point out earlier, Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam - plus, Islam has historically been more tolerant of other views... when the Arabian Peninsula was finally completely taken over by Arabs, due to the social cohesion that Islam ultimately provided them, they never tried to "convert by the sword." All they did was tax those who weren't muslims for not being muslims, and let them keep their culture.

So... poverty == less education == prone to more fundamentalism == prone to more violence.

There's one important ingredient missing in your equation and that's a desperate and fierce sense of nationalism. It's the one thing that the neo-conservatives either fail to realize or aren't nearly concerned with enough. The only way fundamentalist militant Islam (and really fundamentalist militant anything) can become popular is when you create a situation where it is patriotic to support it.

In 1953 the CIA planned a coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq (a secularist, but one that wanted more money from oil in his country to go towards Iranian interests instead of British companies) and anointed a US puppet, the Shah, as his replacement. After 25 years of deeply unpopular autocratic rule, the people rallied behind a group of militant Islamic fundamentalists who had the power to overthrow the government and did just that.

Our pro-Israel hypocrisy, our permanent military presence in the Gulf after Desert Storm, our sanctions, our anointing of puppets like the Shah of Iran and backing militant dictatorships with atrocious human rights activities as long as they're an asset to the US like Saddam's regime up and until their invasion of Kuwait; all these things are where the hatred stems from. That fact that we're viewed as an immoral Christian nation just makes it easier for them to justify and intensify their hatred. There's no question in my mind that if the west had kept their imperialistic reach out of the middle east the last hundred years the region would be vastly wealthier and much more secular then the region we're seeing today.

This administration thinks they can fight terrorism with intimidation and demolishing anti-US governments then replacing them with pro-US ones. As soon as we leave Iraq, whether it's next year or 20 years, there will be an anti-US rebellion and it will likely succeed. They have no understanding or respect for history and no matter how good their intentions are they are wrong. Whether you think the end justifies the means is pointless once you realize their is no end to the path they've chosen. It's what we call a tragedy.

So...poverty == less enducation + US foreign policy == intense nationalism == prone to more fundamentalism == prone to anti-US violence

[Kaydje]

I really want to say that the Muslim hating is a result of propaganda to support the war effort, but I'd probably be wrong.

We can all say that Muslim extremists are responsible for all the barbarism, and you'd probably be right saying so. Though, I just think it's a mouse (Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, etc) that wants to roar at a lion (The U.S.A and it's allies).

That area has been war torn in the past as it is now, so everyone is going to be pissed off anyways. The people there may cling to Islam because their religion is simply what gives them hope and keeps them going day to day in the crappy place they live. I don't believe there is anything in the Qu'Ran about blowing yourself up. Lol.

[giegs]

Meh

Religion, politics, and power.

Never try to separate them.

[Puddles]

Meh
http://forums.intpcentral.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1388604
Religion, politics, and power.

Never try to separate them.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. -Seneca

Religion, politics, power...it's really just a control circle jerk. Powerful institutions be it the US, Islam, or Christianity have all been vehicles of oppression. Pick your poison.