The two faces of Islam.

[Faeelin]

So why did Christian merchants in Italy, and not Islamic merchants in Al-Andalus, turn away from religion?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mr Fun, don't bother. Velo has already shown himself to be a moron that really can't comprehend complex issues and tries to make them as simple as possible so his small brain can handle them. It's useless to argue. It is like arguing with Giancarlo.

Let it go.

If you say so.

And you're right -- millions of Christians today, will celebrate Osama Bin Laden's death, no matter how violent his death will be.

[Lars-E]

Mr. Fun, are you saying that OBL is as guilty as the 3000 who died in WTC and women and children blown up by suicide attackers in Israel?

BTW, I would not support or like if ppl celebrated anyones death, including OBL.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by MrFun


If you say so.

And you're right -- millions of Christians today, will celebrate Osama Bin Laden's death, no matter how violent his death will be.

Thus, the millions who celebrated Hitler's death were the equal of Himmler and the SS. Great analogy.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Mr. Fun, are you saying that OBL is as guilty as the 3000 who died in WTC and women and children blown up by suicide attackers in Israel?

BTW, I would not support or like if ppl celebrated anyones death, including OBL.

WTF??

Those 3,000 people who were killed were innocent civilians.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Lars-E]

Hell, I don't care who you are, if you are poor and uneducated, you listen to the first guy that says he can help you... and you are much more likely to scapegoat someone else.

Possible, yes. Is OBL the first guy?

The conflict in NI is all about religion. The presence of British soldiers and that NI is not "free" or part of Ireland is totally irellevant.

The fact that tutsis and hutis have been at eachothers throats before colonialism and before christianity came to to continent played no part in the massmurders. It's all about religion.

It seems that some want you to believe the two above paragraphs...

The part played here by religion would be the one played by nominal religion and tradition imo.

Regarding bombing and killing of abortion doctors:

I don't support it of course, but I can understand the reasoning behind it:

"The doctors are massmurderes with a license to kill -provided by the government". If you're already very anti-government... You would want to put a stop to this - a huge task btw...

As far as Palestinians blowing up innocent civilians in Israel I can also understand part of the reasoning:

The Jews are nothing but pigs and apes - like they are described in "the holy book", the Qur'an. Add that to other verses encouraging fighting the infidels...

[Lars-E]

WTF??

Those 3,000 people who were killed were innocent civilians.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

You were saying:

And you're right -- millions of Christians today, will celebrate Osama Bin Laden's death, no matter how violent his death will be.

[Lars-E]

Mr. Fun, seems you were comparing the death of OBL with the death of innocent ppl. That's all.

[Velociryx]

Mr Fun, the White Hate groups you mention certainly satisfy the first of the criterion, in that they have been known to blow things and people up.

But with these groups, the second condition is not satisfied.

The population at large does not celebrate these events, and is quick to punish those who act out in this manner. There is rapid and unequivocal condemnation of the act by the population at large, rather than celebration.

Unless both conditions are satisfied, the two are not comparable.

In the same vein, the IRA is composed of members of the Catholic faith....if not exclusively, then close enough to say so, and they DO bomb civilian targets, so here again, the first condition is satisfied. Again though, you see rapid condemnation of the involved parties by members of the Catholic church, and calls for peace and tolerance. If there have ever been (modern, current....I don't know about further back....it's possible, I'll admit) Papal decrees in support of the IRA's bombing activities, I have never seen them. The leaders of the faith simply do not condone the actions, nor is there any footage to be found in any of the sources I have looked, showing celebrations marking the latest successful IRA bombing. The second condition remains therefore unsatisfied.

I totally understand Imran's desire to change the focus of the argument to one of sum-total bloodletting. Since there is no modern evidence to support his position, it is clearly untentable, and only by expanding the scope to include the sum-total bloodletting of both religions does his position gain any creedance.

But that has never been my argument. I would very quickly agree that in sum-totals, Christians have, no doubt, shed more blood in the name of their God.

But I don't live 400 years ago, I live in the here and now, and in the here and now, it's not the Christians performing mass bombings in the name of their God.

To your McVeigh question, my response would be the same. Meets the first condition, but not the second. If the second condition HAD been met (if there had been a celebratory atmosphere after the bombing in Oklahoma, and if there had been no condemnation of the act), they yes, IMO it would be fair to begin raising a suspicious eye toward the larger population.

-=Vel=-

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Mr. Fun, seems you were comparing the death of OBL with the death of innocent ppl. That's all.

Um no -- Osama Bin Laden is not an innocent person.
He is a dangerous person, who needs to be destroyed.

[MrFun]

Velociryx -- ok, you made some good points.

But I still disagree -- Muslims in general, should not be held in suspect.

[Velociryx]

Not bad for a small-minded moron, eh? (to borrow a phrase from the ever-colorful Imran).

I realize that by supporting profiling, I place myself in a position of inherent controversy, and I will readily admit that it's not a perfect solution, however it is an *effective* solution, given that we (speaking here specificially of law enforcement and detection agencies)do not have unlimited resources. Since they must contend with budgetary constraits (as must we all), then some means is necessary to slim down the total number of people (potential terrorists) to investigate.

The most basic of investigative techniques *lends* itself to profiling. Detectives and investigators begin by looking at what factors the terrorists who have already struck have in common. Almost without fail, they're male, and generally younger. Therefore, it makes no sense to waste scarce resources investigating females. That's the most basic form of profiling, but of course there's more. Again, almost without fail, they follow the ways of Islam. So that gets added to the profile. The vast majority hail from the middle east, and so on.

If someone could point to a better, more efficient way to make use of law enforcement's scarce resources, I'd be perfectly willing to change my stance re: profiling, but as it stands, it is the most effective tool we have in terms of directing those resources.

-=Vel=-

[Az]

I think there might be something with Arab Culture, but I don't think it is inherant in that culture, but rather the problems that arose with colonialism and the whole Israel thing.

come on, Imran, you're better than that. This is a well-known excuse, not the real reason of the problems of the arab world. The arab world was generally speaking left alone, in terms of colonialism, relatively to most of the world, And Israel could only be held at some sort of "guilt" only if it could be considered guilty of giving the arab leadership an excuse to the poor conditions of the Arab world. The arab world is blinded by it's illustrious history, and its' machoistic psychology stops it from realizing the grave condition in which it is. The arab world is also guilty in most of the crimes of the "White man", prior to the 20th century, as it engaged in colonialism, slave trade, and the forceful expansion of it's main religion.

[Velociryx]

Shhh! Imran will nitpick you to death if you disagree with him, and will do so in grand Clintonian style! (I think his time in lawschool has seriously degraded his debating skills, but that's just this individual's observations). Good luck nonetheless....

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I'm not sure if this has already mentioned, but:

One can readily find passages in the Qur’an that exhort the faithful to fight and kill the "unbelievers," that is, to wage Jihad (Holy War). Consider, for example, Sura 2:190-191a: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. …" (See also 2:216-218; 8:38-41; 9:5-6 & 29 etc.).

I don't know what the author is smoking, but this passage is obviously an appeal to self defense, characteristic of just about all major religions, not "killing the unbelievers."

I'd like to add that Islamism is a modern, political phenomenon. Look at the situation 40 years ago, and it simply wasn't a very prominent ideology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

come on, Imran, you're better than that. This is a well-known excuse, not the real reason of the problems of the arab world. The arab world was generally speaking left alone, in terms of colonialism, relatively to most of the world, And Israel could only be held at some sort of "guilt" only if it could be considered guilty of giving the arab leadership an excuse to the poor conditions of the Arab world. The arab world is blinded by it's illustrious history, and its' machoistic psychology stops it from realizing the grave condition in which it is. The arab world is also guilty in most of the crimes of the "White man", prior to the 20th century, as it engaged in colonialism, slave trade, and the forceful expansion of it's main religion.

Like Ramo said, 40 years ago you didn't have this Islamism. What is the difference? The legacy of colonialism, ie a feeling of being lessor people than the white Europeans. The other thing that has happened in the last 40 years is the Isreal problem has intensified.

Do you have a better reason for why 40 years ago you didn't have fundamentalism in Arab states and now you do?

[Ned]

Ah, but Imran, Wahhabism is 200 years old.

But, but the better question, is there any time in history where Islam was tolerant of other religions inside their empire or really interested in co-existence with their non Islamic neighbors? Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace.

[Capt Dizle]

Profiling in criminal enforcement should be treated as a completely different issue. This is a war on terror and law enforcement in the US is acting as an extension of our military.

It is the duty of all Americans to endure the infringement of our civil rights in order to ensure the greater good as long as this war and the threat to our country and freedom exists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, but Imran, Wahhabism is 200 years old.

But never was a powerful force in Islam until now.

I can easily say that slavery is millenium old, does that mean Christianity was always (and currently is) pro-slavery?

Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace

That's because you choose to be purposely blind.

Islam has always been more tolerant of other religions than Christianity. Look at the Jews in the mid ages. They really liked being under Christian rule.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
But, but the better question, is there any time in history where Islam was tolerant of other religions inside their empire or really interested in co-existence with their non Islamic neighbors? Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace.

You Ned seem intent in ignoring any part of history that might disagree with your premade assumption, even if it exist in piles.

Can you show us Christianity's peaceful allowance of other relegions until well after the Renaissance- in fact , well into Victorian times? Oh, yeah, forget Christianity's treatment of the main non-Christian minority of the time- Jews. And the treatment of different Christian sects. I mean, no one burned Jan Huss alive, did they?

I can point to the treatment to Jews in muslim Spain, as compared to their treatment in Catholic Spain. Which was more peaceful and tolerant?. Or the long lived Jewish community of Istanbul v. the Long lived Jewish community of London...wait, the Jews were only allowed back in london late in the 17 century. whoops, sorry.

Oh, and of course we all know that Muslims wipped out all Chritian communities in thier power, the savages! Except the Maronites, the Copts, the Armenians (until late Ottoman, young turk secular rule) and so forth.

The reality is that Islam has not been more violent or more apt to persecute than any other major relegion in power. Where Muslims ecumenical? Did they treat other relegions as equals? Of course not, no one did. But you can hardly say that Muslims wipped out any other non-pagan relegious community (compared to Japanese rulers who wipped out Christians, or the Chinese who persecuated them, and still do) Anyone who 'sees' this is looking at selective history, ignoring the counter evidence to justify an untenable (if we judge by historical evidence) position.

[Ned]

GePap, IIRC, Jews joint the battle against the Christian Roman Empire and Christain Visigothic Spain. Could this help explain the difference in treatment?

As far as I can see, the Islamic assault on the Christian West and India continued for more than a 1000 years with Islam winning more than losing until the battle of Lepanto. During the last two or three hundred years, the tide turned radically in favor of the Christian West with the dismemberment of the Turkish and Mogul Empires. It seems though, that Islam is on the rise again. The clerics are beating the drums of holy war. The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

As to toleration?, simply ask the Armenians. The Turks nearly wiped them out, IIRC. It wasn't that long ago either.

Your arguments that Islam is no more intolerant that Christianity is irrelevant. I agree that Christianity is intolerant. In fact, I think the Holocost is the legacy of anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely based in Christian intolerance. But even if Christianity has its ugly side does not mean that Islam does not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um, Ned... you said:

is there any time in history where Islam was tolerant of other religions inside their empire or really interested in co-existence with their non Islamic neighbors? Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace.

So we answered your question. You can't change the question after it was answered.

[Ned]

Well, Imran, I would rather treat Islam as inherently suspect - just as I treat Christianity. Neither religion should have temporal power, because when they do, they tend to use it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I don't think anyone disagrees with that statement. The problem is people saying Islam creates a fundamentally different mindset than Christianity. Both create messed up mindsets whenever they control everything.

[Velociryx]

You know what...you're right Imran....there IS no fundamental difference of mindsets.

That is precisely why you see, here in America (which is dominated by Christianity in one form or another), there is an Islamic community that is currently being protected BY society at large.

There HAVE BEEN attacks made on Muslims and their places of worship here, but those attacks have been loudly and unequivocally condemned, and protection lent to Islamic groups here (and in fact, I just saw a new item today how there is a large degree of cooperation between some islamic groups in the US of A and law enforcement divisions).

I wonder....where are the Christian communities in Islamic countries, and how are they faring? Perhaps a field trip is in order. Why don't we get a volunteer from the ranks of those who don't believe there's any significant difference in the mindsets of the two groups, fly him to Islamabad with a crucifix and a bible and have him mill about the city streets for a while. You know....just to see what happens.

I'm sure he'll be just fine!....show of hands for volunteers? Imran? GePap? Anyone?

No?

Why not?

-=Vel=-

[Az]

Like Ramo said, 40 years ago you didn't have this Islamism. What is the difference? The legacy of colonialism, ie a feeling of being lessor people than the white Europeans. The other thing that has happened in the last 40 years is the Isreal problem has intensified.

Do you have a better reason for why 40 years ago you didn't have fundamentalism in Arab states and now you do?

I was talking about arab culture. Both Islamism of today and pan-arabism of the mid 20th century are the expressions of the same way of thinking.

plus, a specific answer is needed on this passage:

The legacy of colonialism, ie a feeling of being lessor people than the white Europeans

This has nothing to do with colonialism. a feeling of being "lesser people" than white europeans was connected not to the fact that the arabs were conquered, for periods of mostly 30 years, but ranging from 140 to 20 years. This has to do with the arabs having seen the advancement of the european world, and the increase of it's relative strength much beyond theirs.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, IIRC, Jews joint the battle against the Christian Roman Empire and Christain Visigothic Spain. Could this help explain the difference in treatment?

As far as I can see, the Islamic assault on the Christian West and India continued for more than a 1000 years with Islam winning more than losing until the battle of Lepanto. During the last two or three hundred years, the tide turned radically in favor of the Christian West with the dismemberment of the Turkish and Mogul Empires. It seems though, that Islam is on the rise again. The clerics are beating the drums of holy war. The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

As to toleration?, simply ask the Armenians. The Turks nearly wiped them out, IIRC. It wasn't that long ago either.

Your arguments that Islam is no more intolerant that Christianity is irrelevant. I agree that Christianity is intolerant. In fact, I think the Holocost is the legacy of anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely based in Christian intolerance. But even if Christianity has its ugly side does not mean that Islam does not.

Regarding teh Jews in Spain: Nope. Read up on the history of the caliphate of corboda. Christians were welcomed and accepted, and many rapidly took up arab customs, if not Islam. Then came hte reconquista, which began after the fall, as a crusade. This resulted in the almost puritan almohads invading Christian Spain, comitting dozens of atrocities, and turning the reconquista into the 400 year long holy war which gave the spanish their well-known enlightened, secular, tolerant mindset.

I'd argue that Islam, when facing "Christianity", has traditionally lost. Even in the time period that marks what is called the "dark ages" of the west, islam never made significangt inroads. Byzantium held on to Anatolia, losing it in 1071, but was reclaiming it before the 4th crusade.

After invading southern france, frankish noblemen began leading armies which, slowly but surely, pushed the arabs out of southern france and northern spain. Arab sicily lasted until approximately 1066, when the normans invaded. The crusades, in turn, showed that a small force of westerners, thousands of miles from home, with little or no resupply, could still smash most arab armies handily.

Finally, in 1453, the ottoman empire took constantinople. But the byzantines fell only after the venetians sacked constantinople, and spent the nxt 50 years bleeding the empire white.

Then the italian city-state of Venice was able to fight the Turks, losing gradually. A single city state, with a population of no more than 200k, was able to hold back an empire which ruled millions. By the dawn of the 18th century, the ottomans existed only because they were a buffer to russian expansion.

Sure, you can point out the byzantine loss of egypt, but the populace there was sick of byzantine perseuction for being monophysites. The Visigoth kingdoms were little more than rabble; semicivilized barbarians.

[Velociryx]

From Ned: The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

Couldn't agree more.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

This has to do with the arabs having seen the advancement of the european world, and the increase of it's relative strength much beyond theirs.

That's exactly what I meant. When you are top dog (basically) and then are made to feel like lesser people, you tend to get violent. It has happened all over. Look at China for instance. The Boxer Rebellion comes from the fact that the Chinese were the top and then were made to be Europe's slaves (basically), and things turned violent.

If the China now rises to hegemon and the US is treated like they are lesser, I can imagine some American violence erupting.

I was talking about arab culture. Both Islamism of today and pan-arabism of the mid 20th century are the expressions of the same way of thinking.

The pan-Arabism was a TOTALLY secular movement. It was a result of shaking of colonialism from the British and French, which had come not long after the Islamic culture was much more advanced than Europe.

[Ned]

Actually, the Berbers, who led the conquest of Spain, were "converted Jews," Jews who had just twenty years earlier been forced to convert to Islam or die. After the conquest, these Jews were able to resume formal practice of their faith.

It also appears that the Jews of Visigothic Spain actually begged the Arab-Berbers to come to Spain to help them. The Visigoths had embarked on a forceable conversion of the Jews. Thus the Jews of Spain and the Jews/Berbers/Arabs of Africa were indeed allies.

Here is a link

Judaic/Berber Participation in the Islamic Conquest of Southern Iberia

"The converted Jews and Berbers became a significant part of the Arab forces which invaded Iberia. The commander of the joint Berber/Arab army which crossed the strait between Africa and Europe to conquer Spain in 711 CE was a Judeo/Berber convert said to have been one of the sons of Queen Kahena. His Arab name, Jibral-an-Tarik, became transcribed into the name of the fortress, Gibraltar, and the rock is referred to as Tarik’s rock.

Many African Jews entered conversion pragmatically, secretly continuing their faith as did the Marranos of a later period. The Iberian Jews consequently collaborated fully with the invaders. The pragmatism of the converted Jews proved advantageous to both the Arabs and the Iberian Jews. The Arabs were dependant on both the Berber convertees and the Iberian Jews for a successful invasion and thereafter for maintaining their hegemony over the conquered region of Iberia.

Arab chroniclers record that the conquerors entrusted the garrisoning of such important cities as Elvira, Seville, and Cordoba to the Jews while the invaders pressed on in hot pursuit of the fleeing Christian forces. One chronicler informs us that Malaga, which had no Jews, could not be garrisoned because no Jews resided in the city and the Christians had all fled!

The gates to the strategic city of Toledo were opened by Jews on a Palm Sunday when the Christians were attending church services. The imminence of the Arab attack had been anticipated, for the Visigothan grandees had already fled the city, and the archbishop had made tracks all the way to Rome.

The Berber/Arab successes in Iberia were made possible only by the assistance and collaboration of both the Sephardim and the formerly Berber Jews. Once empowered, the primitive Berbers and Arabs, dependant on the industrial and commercial sagacity of the Jews for the continuation and growth of their societies and economies, instituted a period of tolerance. The Arabs absorbed the scholarly attributes of an advanced civilization. Many of the "Arab" philosophers, poets, mathematicians and scientists were converted Jews, or descendants of converted Jews. A new enlightened era for both Arabs and Jews was born.

Jews regained the right to practice their faith and the Jewish populations of North African towns soon burgeoned with new, vibrant Jewish communities. "