• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Convert to Islam or die?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
To me it's a little unbelievable that this thread has gone this far. The administration of a religion by human beings has almost never had much to do with the theological beliefs of the religion. The larger the religion, the more true this is. When Islam started to spread, it was a very tolerant but militant religion. It had respect for "people of the book" (Jews and Christians) and, as a general rule, there were no forced conversions. The Muslims were so dedicated to principles then that they had to recruit foreign armies to attack each other.

That was then. This is now. Show me the western religion without blood on its hands.
 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
683
0
0
Originally posted by: Stonewall
that Israeli soldiers who open fire on civilians or jewish extremists who go into Mosques and open fire on people praying think they are evil...
You reveal your bias.
I "reveal my bias" by using examples of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, along with Nazi-Germans, Americans, and ancient Egyptians, Romans, and Mongols to illustrate the point that pointing to isolated examples of people who twist and misuse ideologies and faith to justify horrible acts and/or encourage others to commit them? Sorry, but I guess I don't follow.

I suppose if the one section of one line you quoted was all I said, it might... but expanding that section of my post a bit, I believe, reveals that while everyone has a bias (and so must I) it wasn't the result of an ulterior motive to impose any such bias on you that led me to post. So to help contextualize what you quoted, here a longer excerpt (for those who don't want to read my admittedly long post):


...do you really think that Hitler and all those in Nazi Germany saw themselves as evil... that those in the US who put first and second-generation native-born Americans of Japanese descent into interment camps, or who did not act to stop it, thought they were evil... that soldiers sent to die in Vietnam and ended up being involved in military actions that targeted civilians thought they were evil... that muslim extremists think they are evil... that Israeli soldiers who open fire on civilians or jewish extremists who go into Mosques and open fire on people praying think they are evil... that the Pharoahs and the Caesars and the Khans all thought they were evil? And the need to understand history doesn't end there...
Truth be told, though, I think that you probably understood my post perfectly; but that my being in disagreement with you, in and of itself, makes me "biased," in your eyes. But no worries, my friend. You have as much right to disagree with me on every point I make as I have to make them. That's what makes this country so wonderful :).

cumhail


 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
82
91
Originally posted by: Whitling
To me it's a little unbelievable that this thread has gone this far. The administration of a religion by human beings has almost never had much to do with the theological beliefs of the religion. The larger the religion, the more true this is. When Islam started to spread, it was a very tolerant but militant religion. It had respect for "people of the book" (Jews and Christians) and, as a general rule, there were no forced conversions. The Muslims were so dedicated to principles then that they had to recruit foreign armies to attack each other.

That was then. This is now. Show me the western religion without blood on its hands.


well yes, early in a religion it is bad to piss off too many people, you dont gain followers that way. as for respecting the people of the book, placing heavy taxes on them, treating them as total second class citizens was part of that "respect". it was pretty near the "respect" the nazi's had for the jews too. guess who invented those star of david markers to mark the infidels huh? ah yes, the people who gave the "Respect". once they gained enough followers and the christians and jews refused to bow to muhammed, their tolerance dissapeared completely, the words of muhammed lost any shred of tolerance. and unlike other religions where the texts are records by others, the koran is the direct word of god through muhammed. kinda hard to argue against that:p http://abbc.com/quotes/index.htm for a little fun:p
 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,473
73
91
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ncircle
a few well placed warheads would rid us of this plague.
Let me be the first conservative to say, that was very inppropriate flamebait.
who said i was flaming?
it may seem outrageous..i guess
i assure you it was not said in jest.
I didn't say you were flaming, I said you were baiting.

But OK, I'll bite, much like I do when BOBDN says something stupid. Where exactly would you place these warheads, and how would this rid us of "this plague"?


these people hate us/israel.period...
whether we withdraw from middle east or stay put, i doubt the sentiment will magically change.
what good is diplomacy doing?there is no diplomacy to be had with people who loathe you.
im sure the token diplomacy will conitinue with little no to progress..the reality is at least in my opinion : this is a battle of civilizations. What is the endgame in all this? We must ask ourselves are we merely postponing an inevitable wider conflict?
If thats the case...how many soldiers have to needlessly be sent into a meat grinder?We have these weapons, and im not suggesting its a 1st option, but i certainly wouldnt rule it out.

It would be nice to be all rosey and idealistic, but what progress has that made?


 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ncircle
a few well placed warheads would rid us of this plague.
Let me be the first conservative to say, that was very inppropriate flamebait.
who said i was flaming?
it may seem outrageous..i guess
i assure you it was not said in jest.
I didn't say you were flaming, I said you were baiting.

But OK, I'll bite, much like I do when BOBDN says something stupid. Where exactly would you place these warheads, and how would this rid us of "this plague"?



these people hate us/israel.period...
whether we withdraw from middle east or stay put, i doubt the sentiment will magically change.
what good is diplomacy doing?there is no diplomacy to be had with people who loathe you.
im sure the token diplomacy will conitinue with little no to progress..the reality is at least in my opinion : this is a battle of civilizations. What is the endgame in all this? We must ask ourselves are we merely postponing an inevitable wider conflict?
If thats the case...how many soldiers have to needlessly be sent into a meat grinder?We have these weapons, and im not suggesting its a 1st option, but i certainly wouldnt rule it out.

It would be nice to be all rosey and idealistic, but what progress has that made?


You did not answer his question. How do you propose to nuke 1.5 billion?

Oh, BTW, you would make Hitler look like a candidate for sainthood.

I believe people who advocate using first strike nukes be allowed to push the button with their own hands, but only after gnawing both their arms off.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
OrooOroo. Your first assertion. The way Muslims treated Jews (and Christians) was pretty near the way Nazis treated Jews. Not even close. This is to ridiculous to dispute.

Taxation in the era of Muslim expansion. I don't know anything particular about Muslim taxation (and, based on your statement about the Nazis, you probably don't either), but the Romans (well before the Muslims) instituted an us and them taxation system. They also hired private tax collectors. The tax collector got the difference between what the Romans wanted and what he could collect.

If you think the Muslims invented the Star of David, I'd like to see the evidence. Here's a link to a responsible Jewish website that discusses the Star of David as a symbol representing Judaism. Nothing in the discussion about Muslims. Incidentally, it does say that this was a common symbol back then. It doesn't say that the swastika was, but that's also true. Muslims and Jews are forbidden from representing the human form. Their art turned to geometrical designs. Star of David

Bow to Muhammed? Where did you get that one? Mohammed is not an object of worship in Islam any more than Paul or St. Paul is in the Christian religion. And in your confusion, you make my point. It's not the words of Mohammed that changed, it's the human administration of the religion.

Your link is to a site sponsored by Muslims who have sayings by and about Jews. I can send you to one run by the Aryan Brotherhood. It doesn't make what's there any more true.

EDITED: Oh yes, revealed religions. That means the religion receives instructions directly from God. Probably the largest and best know of the revealed religions is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. You probably know them as Mormons. God still directs their doings.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
82
91
since you basically misunderstood my whole post, responding is difficult. i never said they invented the star of david, they simply made them wear religious identifcation like the nazi's did with the arm bands with the star of david.

and its true you know nothing about the muslim taxation, maybe you should look it up. they also made it so the word of a jew or gentile was basically worthless in a court of law against the word of a moslim.

when i said bow to muhammed, it was a figure of speech, it meant they refused conversion.

gah!
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Sorry OrooOroo, I always think that words have a literal meaning and that people mean what they say. It's a failing. Are your sources on Muslim taxation as good as your sources on intifada injuries? I notice that you don't cite them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY