eits
Lifer
you're the moron. he's right and you're wrong. the koran says murder and suicide are wrong.
yes, all the suicide bombers are hypocrits... that's what you dumbasses don't seem to realize. they're learning a perversion of islam because people don't know any better.
it's like calling you a moron for not believing kkk members are God-fearing cristians.
eits
Lifer
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Maybe it's because they're westernizing, so they need the foreign investment
You think a man who is religious is going to stop his religious "duty" because he is afraid of foreign investments in his country?
That has to be it! You are genius!
you'd think that a smiley woudl m ake it obvious that it's a joke.
Amused you need to draw a line between Islam and "political Islam" or the empires that spawned afterwards, most of which were muslim simply only in name. For the RELIGION - the violence and "sword" occured within Arabia. That period was very violent, largely because many people tried to kill the prophet Mohammed.
But as far as the greater middle east and north America is concerned- Islam spread through syncretism. That is - it latched onto culture based on common grounds and then worked its way into society. In Iran it spread like wildfire not because Muslims had declared Jihad on the Iranians, but largely because the beleif system was very similar to their Zoroastrian religion (concept of Heaven, Hell, etc) that it was easy for them to grasp and accept. POLITICALLY between empires there were clashes of course - but if you look at empires back then you were either a)expanding or b)not expanding, which meant you were contracting which was not a good thing for an empire.
Islam spread like crazy through North Africa because centuries earlier there was something known as the "Aryan Controversy" in which you had two Christian clergy: Arius and Athancius (sorry about the spelling I cannot spell) debate the status of Jesus. Arius took on the view that Jesus was something of a Demi God..something less than God and seperate almost...radical Arian view took on that he was essentially human like us. The latter beleived that God and Jesus were indivisible. In the end the only compromise was the concept of the Trinity (and the fact that by then of it all Athancius had much more political support). But Arius was from the Alexandria area...and despite the compromise, there still existed that persistent belief in the region as to the status of Jesus and God. When Islam stated plainly and clearly that Jesus and God were individual units and that is why it spread so quickly.
Africa and South East Asia converted because of the traders, not because of the sword again. With time the nobles would see the advantage of converting because by converting you are now initiated into this community that will aid you if you are "attacked", and thus this helps to ensure your power. If the nobles convert, it is only a matter of time before the local population convert as well. this is a tactic used by Christian missionaries as well (although in the former case it was traders just doing their thing and nobles recognizing the potential. In the latter the missionaries knew why they were targetting the nobles), and they specifically targeted nobles and upper class people specifically because the conversion of them would ultimately mean the conversion of the entire society.
You need to spread apart Islam spreading as a religion WITHIN this politically charged empire, and the actions of the empire itself. There are many things that various "Muslim" empires did that were nothing similar to Islam - just like there are MANY "Christian" empires that represented NOTHING of what Christianity stands for (yet I would point out a double standard in that we don't look at various empires in Europe as "christian empires" in their actions -- yet every middle east empire automatically is supposed to represent Islam and the Quran). What some of the Empires did in India was absolutely sick and filthy - some of those leaders were so crazy they killed MUSLIMS who did not take on their views. Do you really think that the Quran spoke of taking "harem" and that the Ottomon's were following what the Quran said?
There were DEFINITELY economic benefits to living under this "Muslim Empire" that conversion to Islam would provide...but to assume that it was generally a conversion by the sword effort outside of Arabia is to be grossly mis informed.
And while I know you have no love for Christianity - if anything they engaged in much of that throughout Europe. Islam spread to many places very quickly, with or without the aid of various empires. But Christianity took itself a long bloody time to really entrench itself into Europe and if it wasn't forcefully and aggressively pushed by its Empires, it wouldn't have made it very far. But of course though, we like to generalize the actions of empires that call itself "Islamic Empires" as those which follow the book....when in reality it is simply a way for an empire to try to legitimize its rule, regardless of how little they actually follow and consider
But as far as the greater middle east and north America is concerned- Islam spread through syncretism. That is - it latched onto culture based on common grounds and then worked its way into society. In Iran it spread like wildfire not because Muslims had declared Jihad on the Iranians, but largely because the beleif system was very similar to their Zoroastrian religion (concept of Heaven, Hell, etc) that it was easy for them to grasp and accept. POLITICALLY between empires there were clashes of course - but if you look at empires back then you were either a)expanding or b)not expanding, which meant you were contracting which was not a good thing for an empire.
Islam spread like crazy through North Africa because centuries earlier there was something known as the "Aryan Controversy" in which you had two Christian clergy: Arius and Athancius (sorry about the spelling I cannot spell) debate the status of Jesus. Arius took on the view that Jesus was something of a Demi God..something less than God and seperate almost...radical Arian view took on that he was essentially human like us. The latter beleived that God and Jesus were indivisible. In the end the only compromise was the concept of the Trinity (and the fact that by then of it all Athancius had much more political support). But Arius was from the Alexandria area...and despite the compromise, there still existed that persistent belief in the region as to the status of Jesus and God. When Islam stated plainly and clearly that Jesus and God were individual units and that is why it spread so quickly.
Africa and South East Asia converted because of the traders, not because of the sword again. With time the nobles would see the advantage of converting because by converting you are now initiated into this community that will aid you if you are "attacked", and thus this helps to ensure your power. If the nobles convert, it is only a matter of time before the local population convert as well. this is a tactic used by Christian missionaries as well (although in the former case it was traders just doing their thing and nobles recognizing the potential. In the latter the missionaries knew why they were targetting the nobles), and they specifically targeted nobles and upper class people specifically because the conversion of them would ultimately mean the conversion of the entire society.
You need to spread apart Islam spreading as a religion WITHIN this politically charged empire, and the actions of the empire itself. There are many things that various "Muslim" empires did that were nothing similar to Islam - just like there are MANY "Christian" empires that represented NOTHING of what Christianity stands for (yet I would point out a double standard in that we don't look at various empires in Europe as "christian empires" in their actions -- yet every middle east empire automatically is supposed to represent Islam and the Quran). What some of the Empires did in India was absolutely sick and filthy - some of those leaders were so crazy they killed MUSLIMS who did not take on their views. Do you really think that the Quran spoke of taking "harem" and that the Ottomon's were following what the Quran said?
There were DEFINITELY economic benefits to living under this "Muslim Empire" that conversion to Islam would provide...but to assume that it was generally a conversion by the sword effort outside of Arabia is to be grossly mis informed.
And while I know you have no love for Christianity - if anything they engaged in much of that throughout Europe. Islam spread to many places very quickly, with or without the aid of various empires. But Christianity took itself a long bloody time to really entrench itself into Europe and if it wasn't forcefully and aggressively pushed by its Empires, it wouldn't have made it very far. But of course though, we like to generalize the actions of empires that call itself "Islamic Empires" as those which follow the book....when in reality it is simply a way for an empire to try to legitimize its rule, regardless of how little they actually follow and consider
uhh no...Isreal is slowly coming on 6 million jews, whereas Iran has about 50,000.
If anything, a few million Jews lived dispersed in many "Muslim" countries...you know, those countries that ended up embarking on a mass genocide of...wait, that was my Europe my bad! Iraq itself had over 400,000 at one point~
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
The Middle East, Spain and North Aftrica were violently taken by the Muslims. To call their conquests non-violent is absurd. The conversion of Egypt was especially brutal... and sad, as the Egyptian culture was all but lost.
At any rate, my post was to point out facts in the face of misinformation. I did so, factually. The Muslims were NOT "innocent victims" of the crusades and, in fact, their aggression sparked the crusades. The crusades were, in reality, responses to muslim aggression. Muslims did not learn violence from Christianity, but in reality had been practicing violence for 400 years previous to the first crusades.
eits
Lifer
whoops. you're right. my bad. i misheard the fact...
iran is home to the 2nd largest population in the middle east, behind israel.
eits
Lifer
it was mainly nonviolent. there were lots of violent parts, though.
also, whenever they took slaves, the slaves ended up having a better life than their normal lives would have been. they had pretty much all the freedoms everyone else had... and they were allowed to practice their own religion.
Yeah thats unlikely, because Iran is 99% muslim http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia_general.html out of ~70 million, less than 1million are non-muslim
eits
Lifer
You are joking right? So when the Mughals took over India, all the Hindus and natives had a better life? So when they destroyed Hindu temples and erected mosques the Hindus had better lives? So when they were sitting in their palaces automatically everyone else became much happier?
Get your ****** head out of your ****** ass.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Bwahahahahahahaha! Googers is on a roll!
Did you guys even bother to check the names/titles of the people in the video who spoke as "experts"?
Director of JihadWatch.org?
A Jewish author?
An editor for Chronicles magazine (a known paleoconservative mouthpiece)?
One person in the video wasn't even identified. Three out of the five were authors with anti-Islamic books.
Let's face it guys, there is no point in trying to dig up reasons to hate 1.3 billion people based on religion alone. Just because they practice a faith doesn't mean they don't live everyday lives like you and I. Being Muslim doesn't mean crowding around the dinner table every night and planning a global Jihad. If you're stupid enough to believe that, I pity you.
Did you guys even bother to check the names/titles of the people in the video who spoke as "experts"?
Director of JihadWatch.org?
A Jewish author?
An editor for Chronicles magazine (a known paleoconservative mouthpiece)?
One person in the video wasn't even identified. Three out of the five were authors with anti-Islamic books.
Let's face it guys, there is no point in trying to dig up reasons to hate 1.3 billion people based on religion alone. Just because they practice a faith doesn't mean they don't live everyday lives like you and I. Being Muslim doesn't mean crowding around the dinner table every night and planning a global Jihad. If you're stupid enough to believe that, I pity you.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Interesting point of view, considering that during the centuries "Christian" Europe was stagnant in development, human advancement in the areas of science, mathematics and technology were greatly developed in Middle Eastern (and Islamic) societies.
This is what I am talking about.
These are EMPIRES right now that we are discussing. Political Islam is different from Islam within the QURAN. Islam doesn't talk about creating a political empire - it doesn't give the Sultan absolute power to do whatever he wants, it doesn't give him a harem of women, it encourages questioning those in authority, it mandates war ONLY when you are attacked yourself. Mohammed himself was the diametric opposite of many of these rulers - he lived a plain and simple life when he could have pimped it at the end and got a massive tomb for himself and lavish in riches like many of these Sultans have done.
We call these Islamic Empires because these empire that rose took on Islam as their means of claiming divine legitimacy. But these empires were more concerned with spreading their power and taxation - NOT with converting the population. These guys were about the bottom line in terms of money that can be drawn. There exists more non Muslims in almost any Muslim empire than any similar "christian"empire because those Christians such as the Spanish WERE the ones saying "we'll cut yer head off if you don't convert". Mongols and Chinese have better track records...so as long as the religion is not seen as a perceived threat to their power.
The forced conversions occured in Saudi Arabia...and they were forced insofar as Muslims could not tolerate the worshipping of Idols in the Kabaa - but that is where the bloody scenes occur. The rest is simply battles between empires.
There are weird events - such as at one point a few military commanders in Iran offered literally cash to those who would convert (quite possibly the most stupid thing. I would go each day to a different military group and keep converting till I'm a millionaire
)You are still putting out mis information. Where does your information come from? I get mine from college lectures - lectures from known Historian such as Kennith Pomeranz (actually his focus is China, but the man knows an incredible amount of information). Academic circles clearly don't speak of "teh eBBBBil" of Islam, you only hear that in revisionist circles who want to make it seem that Muslims are secretly gathering in basements to plot over and take over the world
Uhh what are you trying to say. I said Iran has 50,000 Jews which is perfectly consistent if you consider a population of 70 million.
Christianity was just as violent during the crusades. the things is that Christianity, (that is the people who practice it) have evolved in terms of society but a lot of Muslims haven't. Buddhism and Judaism are the only other major religions that aren't violent in the sense that they don't force other people to believe in it.
I"m not sure that I entirely agree with that. The vatican has even publically accepted evolution. To me the "seat" of christianity seems far more flexibile and willing to modernize than the seat of islam.
As an atheist I don't really have much of a horse in the race. I think all religions are responsible for some pretty terrible things both in the past and currently. I certainly don't people that all muslims are taught or believe that their faith is a violent matter. There is certainly a large enough number of people taught a violent version of islam that it is a serious issue. To me that just means that no matter is the koran is "really" peaceful or not, there's a lot of violent muslims out there.
edit: Is there an islamic country that we could consider as not having human rights issues or in some way oppressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Muslim_countries
Originally posted by: magomago
This is what I am talking about.
These are EMPIRES right now that we are discussing. Political Islam is different from Islam within the QURAN. Islam doesn't talk about creating a political empire - it doesn't give the Sultan absolute power to do whatever he wants, it doesn't give him a harem of women, it encourages questioning those in authority, it mandates war ONLY when you are attacked yourself. Mohammed himself was the diametric opposite of many of these rulers - he lived a plain and simple life when he could have pimped it at the end and got a massive tomb for himself and lavish in riches like many of these Sultans have done.
We call these Islamic Empires because these empire that rose took on Islam as their means of claiming divine legitimacy. But these empires were more concerned with spreading their power and taxation - NOT with converting the population. These guys were about the bottom line in terms of money that can be drawn. There exists more non Muslims in almost any Muslim empire than any similar "christian"empire because those Christians such as the Spanish WERE the ones saying "we'll cut yer head off if you don't convert". Mongols and Chinese have better track records...so as long as the religion is not seen as a perceived threat to their power.
The forced conversions occured in Saudi Arabia...and they were forced insofar as Muslims could not tolerate the worshipping of Idols in the Kabaa - but that is where the bloody scenes occur. The rest is simply battles between empires.
There are weird events - such as at one point a few military commanders in Iran offered literally cash to those who would convert (quite possibly the most stupid thing. I would go each day to a different military group and keep converting till I'm a millionaire
You are still putting out mis information. Where does your information come from? I get mine from college lectures - lectures from known Historian such as Kennith Pomeranz (actually his focus is China, but the man knows an incredible amount of information). Academic circles clearly don't speak of "teh eBBBBil" of Islam, you only hear that in revisionist circles who want to make it seem that Muslims are secretly gathering in basements to plot over and take over the world
Uhh what are you trying to say. I said Iran has 50,000 Jews which is perfectly consistent if you consider a population of 70 million.
Sorry, I meant to tell Eits
I can see your point- but Islam hasn't had this whole "omg Teh Ebooolution" because if anything, the Quran states that humans were "molded" and thus our creation was a multi process step.
To best put it: ultimately to put it best (Taken from an Interfaith dialog between Islam Christianity and Judaism I attended) : Islam believes in the uncaused first cause...or something like that
It is supposed to mean that God started something somewhere, and whatever may have happened is plausible. Although I know most reject that we came directly from monkeys, as would I...I doubt our common ancestor was a monkey Probably some weird thing.That and the Quran demands we seek and pursue that knowledge. The first revalations insist that we read and pursue knowledge and goes: "Read in the name of thy Sustainer, who has created - created a man out of a germ-cell. Read - for thy sustainer is the most bountiful one who has taught man the use of the pen - taught the man what he did not know...."
I would ask if this is a result of being an Islamic country or other factors. Causation does not imply correlation. Can we think and compile a list of anything else that may have lead to this?
I would but I have a basketball tournament right now where I plan to aid my team in taking down a bunch of FOBS
They may have said said its a 3v3...but they never said that the team must be entirely from the FOB club A Brazilian, an Arab, and a Chinese vs 13 teams of 3 Chinese... multiculturalism shall dominate! Thats absolutely untrue. In fact, it was the other way around (the Christians learned the crusading "convert or die" game from the Muslims). Maybe you should read a book.
No it doesn't, none whatsoever. I realize its fashionable to hate Christianity, but his post was untrue and he has no idea what he's talking about. There are plenty of books about the Crusades and what caused them, in case you guys are actually interested in the truth. It goes something like this:
-Muslims attack Byzantine Empire and steal the Holy Land from the Christians. Neither Islam nor Arabs are native to the region, that is a modern myth; in fact they are its most recent invaders. They then sweep across North Africa and into Spain, where they drive the Christians into the far north of the penisula and take over. They then invade France as well but are stopped by the Franks at the Battle of Tours. Muslims go on to conquer Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and plant a foothold in Provence from which to prey on everything around them (NW Italy and SE France), including civilians, merchant ships, and Alpine trade routes, because thats what militant Muslims do.
-Muslims attack Byzantium again, this time overrunning Asia Minor and threatening Constantinople itself. The Byzantine Emperor asks Western Christendom for aid, and they respond with the FIRST CRUSADE, which retakes the Holy Land. 2nd Crusade was a direct response to the Muslim destruction of Christian Edessa. 3rd was a direct response to the Muslim reconquest of the Holy Land. Etc., etc., etc.
Now what were you revisionist trendies saying?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter