Is Islam Inherently Violent?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

According to the site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ there have been 10142 deadly Jihadi attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. While this figure alone is very disturbing, I think it becomes even more impressive when looked at in the historical context of Islam.

By the time Mohammed had died, he had already conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in the name of Allah. Muslim armies would continue to conquer new lands almost continuously until 1757 (when the Mughal Empire collapsed, and the decaying Ottoman empire was left as the only important Muslim state).

Now, many will be quick to say that other religions are just as violent as Islam (the Crusades are frequently mentioned). However, let's examine this claim.

Christianity: Almost entirely pacifistic until around 300 AD (when Constantine came to power). After this, most of the political powers in Europe were at least nominally Christian (and so their armies were as well). Nevertheless, the first major offensive war ever fought specifically in the name of Christ didn't happen until 1095 (First Crusade); the last such war (not counting European imperialism, which was not explicitly Christian in motive) was fought in 1443 (Crusade of Varna). Very little Christian-based violence since that date (i.e. no major wars).

Hinduism: Several Hindu empires rose, but they were regionalized within India, and never had major expansionary goals. Largely pacifistic since the collapse of the Vijayanagara Empire in 1646.

Buddhism: Very few empires of major note; almost no important Buddhist-inspired wars.

In comparison with the 3 other biggest religious groups, it seems to me that Islam has a terrible record of violence. Furthermore, I'd argue that the example Mohammed set, as well as some rather inflammatory verses in the Quran and Hadith (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm for an excellent list) both make violence far more compatible with Islam than with any other major faith.

What does everyone think?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:41 am
According to the site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ there have been 10142 deadly Jihadi attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. While this figure alone is very disturbing, I think it becomes even more impressive when looked at in the historical context of Islam.

By the time Mohammed had died, he had already conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in the name of Allah. Muslim armies would continue to conquer new lands almost continuously until 1757 (when the Mughal Empire collapsed, and the decaying Ottoman empire was left as the only important Muslim state).

Now, many will be quick to say that other religions are just as violent as Islam (the Crusades are frequently mentioned). However, let's examine this claim.

Christianity: Almost entirely pacifistic until around 300 AD (when Constantine came to power). After this, most of the political powers in Europe were at least nominally Christian (and so their armies were as well). Nevertheless, the first major offensive war ever fought specifically in the name of Christ didn't happen until 1095 (First Crusade); the last such war (not counting European imperialism, which was not explicitly Christian in motive) was fought in 1443 (Crusade of Varna). Very little Christian-based violence since that date (i.e. no major wars).

Hinduism: Several Hindu empires rose, but they were regionalized within India, and never had major expansionary goals. Largely pacifistic since the collapse of the Vijayanagara Empire in 1646.

Buddhism: Very few empires of major note; almost no important Buddhist-inspired wars.

In comparison with the 3 other biggest religious groups, it seems to me that Islam has a terrible record of violence. Furthermore, I'd argue that the example Mohammed set, as well as some rather inflammatory verses in the Quran and Hadith (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm for an excellent list) both make violence far more compatible with Islam than with any other major faith.

What does everyone think?
Aren't we forgetting the 30 Years War, hmmm?

Furthermore, I think all religions are equally idiotic.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Agora77+December 06, 2007 02:45 am--> (Agora77 @ December 06, 2007 02:45 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:41 am
According to the site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ there have been 10142 deadly Jihadi attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. While this figure alone is very disturbing, I think it becomes even more impressive when looked at in the historical context of Islam.

By the time Mohammed had died, he had already conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in the name of Allah. Muslim armies would continue to conquer new lands almost continuously until 1757 (when the Mughal Empire collapsed, and the decaying Ottoman empire was left as the only important Muslim state).

Now, many will be quick to say that other religions are just as violent as Islam (the Crusades are frequently mentioned). However, let's examine this claim.

Christianity: Almost entirely pacifistic until around 300 AD (when Constantine came to power). After this, most of the political powers in Europe were at least nominally Christian (and so their armies were as well). Nevertheless, the first major offensive war ever fought specifically in the name of Christ didn't happen until 1095 (First Crusade); the last such war (not counting European imperialism, which was not explicitly Christian in motive) was fought in 1443 (Crusade of Varna). Very little Christian-based violence since that date (i.e. no major wars).

Hinduism: Several Hindu empires rose, but they were regionalized within India, and never had major expansionary goals. Largely pacifistic since the collapse of the Vijayanagara Empire in 1646.

Buddhism: Very few empires of major note; almost no important Buddhist-inspired wars.

In comparison with the 3 other biggest religious groups, it seems to me that Islam has a terrible record of violence. Furthermore, I'd argue that the example Mohammed set, as well as some rather inflammatory verses in the Quran and Hadith (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm for an excellent list) both make violence far more compatible with Islam than with any other major faith.

What does everyone think?
Aren't we forgetting the 30 Years War, hmmm? [/b]
First, the 30 Years War was fought by Christians, but it wasn't really a Christian War. Protestant Sweden fought with the Catholic Holy Roman Empire (just as a single example), and allegiances shifted. It was a political fight, not a religious one.

Besides, even if we think of it as a Christian war, it's still a comparatively isolated event. What I find interesting about Islam isn't that it has fought wars: its that its entire history has almost no episodes of peace, at any point.

[counterblast]

All religion is inherently violent.

EDIT: And debating which is worse is pointless.

We might as well argue whether Hitler or Mussolini was a "nicer" dictator.

It doesn't matter the outcome, as neither are very liberating.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:51 am
All religion is inherently violent.
And you explain centuries of Buddhist, Hindu, Christian pacificism (see my original post for historical data) how?

Keep in mind, having violent episodes does not equate to inherent violence. People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 02:48 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 02:48 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:45 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:41 am
According to the site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ there have been 10142 deadly Jihadi attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. While this figure alone is very disturbing, I think it becomes even more impressive when looked at in the historical context of Islam.

By the time Mohammed had died, he had already conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in the name of Allah. Muslim armies would continue to conquer new lands almost continuously until 1757 (when the Mughal Empire collapsed, and the decaying Ottoman empire was left as the only important Muslim state).

Now, many will be quick to say that other religions are just as violent as Islam (the Crusades are frequently mentioned). However, let's examine this claim.

Christianity: Almost entirely pacifistic until around 300 AD (when Constantine came to power). After this, most of the political powers in Europe were at least nominally Christian (and so their armies were as well). Nevertheless, the first major offensive war ever fought specifically in the name of Christ didn't happen until 1095 (First Crusade); the last such war (not counting European imperialism, which was not explicitly Christian in motive) was fought in 1443 (Crusade of Varna). Very little Christian-based violence since that date (i.e. no major wars).

Hinduism: Several Hindu empires rose, but they were regionalized within India, and never had major expansionary goals. Largely pacifistic since the collapse of the Vijayanagara Empire in 1646.

Buddhism: Very few empires of major note; almost no important Buddhist-inspired wars.

In comparison with the 3 other biggest religious groups, it seems to me that Islam has a terrible record of violence. Furthermore, I'd argue that the example Mohammed set, as well as some rather inflammatory verses in the Quran and Hadith (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm for an excellent list) both make violence far more compatible with Islam than with any other major faith.

What does everyone think?
Aren't we forgetting the 30 Years War, hmmm?
First, the 30 Years War was fought by Christians, but it wasn't really a Christian War. Protestant Sweden fought with the Catholic Holy Roman Empire (just as a single example), and allegiances shifted. It was a political fight, not a religious one.

Besides, even if we think of it as a Christian war, it's still a comparatively isolated event. What I find interesting about Islam isn't that it has fought wars: its that its entire history has almost no episodes of peace, at any point. [/b]
OK, in order for a war to be "religious", it doesn't have to be an epic struggle between two major religions; wars within religious factions are religious wars as well. Catholics vs. Protestants, Sunnis vs. Shia, etc.

Second, who cares if Islam is more violent? Is the Christian cult of the spaghetti monster any less idiotic than the Islamic cult of the spaghetti monster?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:55 am
OK, in order for a war to be "religious", it doesn't have to be an epic struggle between two major religions; wars within religious factions are religious wars as well. Catholics vs. Protestants, Sunnis vs. Shia, etc.

Second, who cares if Islam is more violent? Is the Christian cult of the spaghetti monster any less idiotic than the Islamic cult of the spaghetti monster?
But the 30 Years War wasn't between religious factions. Religion wasn't a motivating factor; the decline of the Holy Roman Empire was.

Who cares if Islam is more violent? That's essentially asking: "Who cares if almost 2 billion people are members of a dangerous and rapidly growing violent cult?" Personally, I think just about everyone should be concerned.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well if you examine these conflicts they are rarely about religion but more about economy. Before there was nationalism and patriotism the powers at be used religion as a rallying point for the masses.

[Great Helmsman]

Nazi Germany + colonization of the Americas = Christianity as the most genocidal religion in history.

The jihadis wish they could kill as many people as Bush.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 02:54 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 02:54 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:51 am
All religion is inherently violent.
And you explain centuries of Buddhist, Hindu, Christian pacificism (see my original post for historical data) how?

Keep in mind, having violent episodes does not equate to inherent violence. People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception. [/b]
So the crimes of Charles Manson are to be overlooked , because he went 30 years without killing someone?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 03:00 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:55 am
OK, in order for a war to be "religious", it doesn't have to be an epic struggle between two major religions; wars within religious factions are religious wars as well. Catholics vs. Protestants, Sunnis vs. Shia, etc.

Second, who cares if Islam is more violent? Is the Christian cult of the spaghetti monster any less idiotic than the Islamic cult of the spaghetti monster?
But the 30 Years War wasn't between religious factions. Religion wasn't a motivating factor; the decline of the Holy Roman Empire was.

Who cares if Islam is more violent? That's essentially asking: "Who cares if almost 2 billion people are members of a dangerous and rapidly growing violent cult?" Personally, I think just about everyone should be concerned. [/b]
From Encarta:

Thirty Years’ War, series of European conflicts lasting from 1618 to 1648, involving most of the countries of western Europe, and fought mainly in Germany. At first the struggle was primarily based on the profound religious antagonism engendered among Germans by the events of the Protestant Reformation. Religious animosity, especially among non-German adherents of the contending Protestant and Roman Catholic factions, broadened the war and was a substantial factor in its later stages. As the struggle gained momentum, however, its direction and character were decisively influenced by various other issues, including the dynastic rivalries of ambitious German princes and the determination of certain European powers, notably Sweden and France, to curb the power of the Holy Roman Empire, then the chief political instrument of Austria and the ruling Habsburg family. The religious hatreds that flared into the Thirty Years’ War had smoldered for more than half a century before 1618.

Religion played a central role. The End.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 06, 2007 03:01 am
Well if you examine these conflicts they are rarely about religion but more about economy. Before there was nationalism and patriotism the powers at be used religion as a rallying point for the masses.
Notice, however, that Islam is constantly used as an excuse for violence (including rationalizing some of the most dramatic conquests in history).

Other religions apparently aren't as well-suited for this purpose (because they're used far less frequently). Also, I don't think you can entirely explain Islamic conquests with economics. Many of the early conquests were of huge (and virtually worthless) swabs of desert; the only value in these regions were local tribesmen (who, after converting, were usually not economically incorporated into the local Muslim empire).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:00 am
But the 30 Years War wasn't between religious factions. Religion wasn't a motivating factor; the decline of the Holy Roman Empire was.

Who cares if Islam is more violent? That's essentially asking: "Who cares if almost 2 billion people are members of a dangerous and rapidly growing violent cult?" Personally, I think just about everyone should be concerned.
The problem is that Islam isn't some huge, monolithic threat. It's a very fractured movement. The only people who portray it as anything but a bunch of misfits lashing out desperately against the US global hegemon are the douchebags who want to turn America into a quasi-Fascist state.

[La Comédie Noire]

The Thirty Years' War was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany, and involved most of the major European continental powers. Although it was ostensibly a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was a more central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France under the de facto rule of Cardinal Richelieu supported the Protestant side in order to weaken the Habsburgs, thereby furthering France's position as the pre-eminent European power. This increased the France-Habsburg rivalry which led later to direct war between France and Spain.

Power Struggle, Economy. The end.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Great [email protected] 06, 2007 03:03 am
Nazi Germany + colonization of the Americas = Christianity as the most genocidal religion in history.

The jihadis wish they could kill as many people as Bush.
The Nazis weren't Christians (several Nazi leaders openly derided Christianity, and it was never a central tenant of Nazi ideology). The colonization of the Americas was primarily bloody because of the diseases spread. The Spanish couldn't have known that they would infect 75% of the Natives when they landed. Furthermore, many Christians (Bartolome de las Casas, for instance) worked to improve Indian conditions; it was most the secular authorities who were responsible for the massacres.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 06, 2007 03:09 am

The Thirty Years' War was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany, and involved most of the major European continental powers. Although it was ostensibly a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was a more central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France under the de facto rule of Cardinal Richelieu supported the Protestant side in order to weaken the Habsburgs, thereby furthering France's position as the pre-eminent European power. This increased the France-Habsburg rivalry which led later to direct war between France and Spain.

Power Struggle, Economy. The end.
Agreed. The Thirty Years' War was not fought on religious lines, or motivated primarily by religion.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:54 am
People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception.
My family members don't exhibit "spiritually-motivated violent tendencies" and they're all Muslim.

I guess my family is exempt from your theory that Islam is a "saber-rattlers only" religion?

Not all Muslims are deeply conservative Burka-wearing terrorists, you know.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 06, 2007 03:09 am

The Thirty Years' War was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany, and involved most of the major European continental powers. Although it was ostensibly a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was a more central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France under the de facto rule of Cardinal Richelieu supported the Protestant side in order to weaken the Habsburgs, thereby furthering France's position as the pre-eminent European power. This increased the France-Habsburg rivalry which led later to direct war between France and Spain.

Power Struggle, Economy. The end.
I said that religion was A central role. Didn't say it was the only reason. Just like killing infidels isn't the Islamic fundies only reason for doing what they do.

The fact is that while people in power may have been "pulling the strings", many of the participants of the war were spured onward to mass murder in blind devotion to their RELIGION.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 03:04 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 03:04 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:54 am

[email protected] 06, 2007 02:51 am
All religion is inherently violent.
And you explain centuries of Buddhist, Hindu, Christian pacificism (see my original post for historical data) how?

Keep in mind, having violent episodes does not equate to inherent violence. People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception.
So the crimes of Charles Manson are to be overlooked , because he went 30 years without killing someone? [/b]
First, an individual and a movement are very different things. A movement may have a violent point, without violence being central to the movement (the same may not be said of a person).

Furthermore, we aren't talking 30 years. We're talking centuries, punctuated by historically brief periods of violence.

[La Comédie Noire]

[/QUOTE]Notice, however, that Islam is constantly used as an excuse for violence (including rationalizing some of the most dramatic conquests in history).

Other religions apparently aren't as well-suited for this purpose (because they're used far less frequently). Also, I don't think you can entirely explain Islamic conquests with economics. Many of the early conquests were of huge (and virtually worthless) swabs of desert; the only value in these regions were local tribesmen (who, after converting, were usually not economically incorporated into the local Muslim empire).[QUOTE]

You have a point there.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And what exactly makes "Islam" a cult, while Christianity gets the distinguished title of "religion"? They're all cults.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 03:12 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 03:12 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:54 am
People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception.
My family members don't exhibit "spiritually-motivated violent tendencies" and they're all Muslim.

I guess my family is exempt from your theory that Islam is a "saber-rattlers only" religion?

Not all Muslims are deeply conservative Burka-wearing terrorists, you know. [/b]
Yes, and not all Nazis killed Jews or even felt very strongly about the matter. That doesn't mean Nazism isn't a violent ideology.

P.S. For the record, I'm not equating Islam with Nazism, I'm just drawing an analogy.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:08 am
The problem is that Islam isn't some huge, monolithic threat. It's a very fractured movement. The only people who portray it as anything but a bunch of misfits lashing out desperately against the US global hegemon are the douchebags who want to turn America into a quasi-Fascist state.
No, Islam isn't a monolith. However, I think there are trends in the religion that can't be dismissed.

P.S. In response to a later post of yours, all religions are cults (including Christianity). This is not a pejorative term, and I intended no insult when I referred to Islam as a cult; it's just the first term that sprang to mind.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 09:13 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 09:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:04 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:54 am

[email protected] 06, 2007 02:51 am
All religion is inherently violent.
And you explain centuries of Buddhist, Hindu, Christian pacificism (see my original post for historical data) how?

Keep in mind, having violent episodes does not equate to inherent violence. People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception.
So the crimes of Charles Manson are to be overlooked , because he went 30 years without killing someone?
First, an individual and a movement are very different things. A movement may have a violent point, without violence being central to the movement (the same may not be said of a person).

Furthermore, we aren't talking 30 years. We're talking centuries, punctuated by historically brief periods of violence. [/b]
What about all of the 'heretics who were jailed/exiled/starved/killed, you spammy troll?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:41 pm
What does everyone think?
I think recent bombings and other events have nothing to do with religion.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 03:13 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 03:13 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:04 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:54 am

[email protected] 06, 2007 02:51 am
All religion is inherently violent.
And you explain centuries of Buddhist, Hindu, Christian pacificism (see my original post for historical data) how?

Keep in mind, having violent episodes does not equate to inherent violence. People fight; any sufficiently large religious group will have saber-rattlers. However, most religions do not consistently display spiritually-motivated violent tendencies. Islam, I think, is a clear exception.
So the crimes of Charles Manson are to be overlooked , because he went 30 years without killing someone?
First, an individual and a movement are very different things. A movement may have a violent point, without violence being central to the movement (the same may not be said of a person). [/b]
And this of course is where we disagree.

You view movements as seperate entities void of accountability.

I view them collective gatherings of individuals, that are accountable for their actions.

Hitler was a 'rattle-shaker' that supported genocide against Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies, but Nazi Germany collectively carried it out.


And I disagree with you regarding individuals and violence. Most psychologists do too.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:18 am
What about all of the 'heretics who were jailed/exiled/starved/killed, you spammy troll?
In the entire history of the Spanish Inquistion, only 800 people are known to have been burned (higher estimates place it around 1200).

Horrific, but pretty meager when put in perspective (after all, Islamists kill that number every year).

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 06, 2007 03:27 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 06, 2007 03:27 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:41 pm
What does everyone think?
I think recent bombings and other events have nothing to do with religion. [/b]
Despite the insistence of the bombers to the contrary?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 09:29 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 09:29 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:18 am
What about all of the 'heretics who were jailed/exiled/starved/killed, you spammy troll?
In the entire history of the Spanish Inquistion, only 800 people are known to have been burned (higher estimates place it around 1200).

Horrific, but pretty meager when put in perspective (after all, Islamists kill that number every year). [/b]
UUMm... Proof?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:28 am
And this of course is where we disagree.

You view movements as seperate entities void of accountability.

I view them collective gatherings of individuals, that are accountable for their actions.

Hitler was a 'rattle-shaker' that supported genocide against Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies, but Nazi Germany collectively carried it out.


And I disagree with you regarding individuals and violence. Most psychologists do too.
I think you must have misunderstood me.

I do think movements are collectively responsible for their actions. That said, I think that movements are not constant. Christianity was violent during the Crusades. Centries later, and with a completely different congregation, I don't consider Christianity violent. Centuries have passed with Islam, yet it stays violent in every one of those centuries.

P.S. My entire point with the Nazi example is that groups bear collective responsibility for the actions of violent members. If, by some miracle, in a few centuries Nazis have re-emerged as a bunch of peace-lovers, then I wouldn't consider Nazism, as a whole, violent. Until such a reformation, I'll class it as violent; the same is true for Islam.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 06, 2007 03:34 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 06, 2007 03:34 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 09:29 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:18 am
What about all of the 'heretics who were jailed/exiled/starved/killed, you spammy troll?
In the entire history of the Spanish Inquistion, only 800 people are known to have been burned (higher estimates place it around 1200).

Horrific, but pretty meager when put in perspective (after all, Islamists kill that number every year).
UUMm... Proof? [/b]
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls for a start. They site external links and further sources (in case you're not satisfied with the article).

I've previously sited my sources for Islamist-caused death tolls (www.thereligionofpeace.com).

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 11:30 pm
Despite the insistence of the bombers to the contrary?
Just because the bombers invoke the name 'Allah' doesn't mean what they're doing is for religious reasons. Rather they use religious phrases and aesthetics to better validate political action. What they're doing is political, not religious.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 06, 2007 03:38 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 06, 2007 03:38 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 11:30 pm
Despite the insistence of the bombers to the contrary?
Just because the bombers invoke the name 'Allah' doesn't mean what they're doing is for religious reasons. Rather they use religious phrases and aesthetics to better validate political action. What they're doing is political, not religious. [/b]
Exactly.

(I'm not trying to be an apologist for Islam, just so you know. I think it sucks. Just like all other religions.)

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 06, 2007 03:38 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 06, 2007 03:38 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 11:30 pm
Despite the insistence of the bombers to the contrary?
Just because the bombers invoke the name 'Allah' doesn't mean what they're doing is for religious reasons. Rather they use religious phrases and aesthetics to better validate political action. What they're doing is political, not religious. [/b]
To me, that's sort of like saying the Holocaust had nothing to do with Nazism, but was instead a function of economics.

Yes, I understand that people get involved in the Jihadist movement who aren't necessarily the most sincere Muslims. On the other hand, I think it's simply illogical to argue that Jihadism has nothing to do with religion (or Islam).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:15 am
Yes, and not all Nazis killed Jews or even felt very strongly about the matter. That doesn't mean Nazism isn't a violent ideology.

P.S. For the record, I'm not equating Islam with Nazism, I'm just drawing an analogy.
OK. Agreed. So lets apply that to Christianity too while we're at it.

Most Christian men don't make their wives wear head coverings as the Bible dictates or even feel strongly about the matter.

That doesn't mean the Christian faith isn't oppressive.




So we have Islam, Christianity and Nazism and all of them are oppressive.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 03:43 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 03:43 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:15 am
Yes, and not all Nazis killed Jews or even felt very strongly about the matter. That doesn't mean Nazism isn't a violent ideology.

P.S. For the record, I'm not equating Islam with Nazism, I'm just drawing an analogy.
OK. Agreed. So lets apply that to Christianity too while we're at it.

Most Christian men don't make their wives wear head coverings as the Bible dictates or even feel strongly about the matter.

That doesn't mean the Christian faith isn't oppressive.




So we have Islam, Christianity and Nazism and all of them are oppressive. [/b]
1. The Bible doesn't dictate head coverings (certainly not in the context of Jesus's New Convenant and Pauline theology).

2. Give me some examples of consistent, recent oppressive behavior by Christians, and I'll concede that the faith is oppressive.

P.S. Once or twice a decade abortion clinic bombers don't count as consistent behavior.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 11:42 pm
Yes, I understand that people get involved in the Jihadist movement who aren't necessarily the most sincere Muslims. On the other hand, I think it's simply illogical to argue that Jihadism has nothing to do with religion (or Islam).
That's a ridiculous comparison. Do you even know what the word 'jihad' means? In modern Arabic and in Islam it means struggle, both peaceful and violent.

You also didn't refute my claim in anyway.

[Faux Real]

What does everyone think?
I think the semi-feudal and current capitalist set of social arrangements is inherently violent and allows for people out of desperation and lack of social services to go do inane things in the name of some odd cause.

As for Islam itself some people interpret it for peaceful means while others invoke it for not so peaceful means. It's quite silly lumping every single Muslim on the planet and calling them "violent".

Maybe there's something to be violent about anyway... *cough*capitalism*cough*

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 06, 2007 03:51 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 06, 2007 03:51 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 11:42 pm
Yes, I understand that people get involved in the Jihadist movement who aren't necessarily the most sincere Muslims. On the other hand, I think it's simply illogical to argue that Jihadism has nothing to do with religion (or Islam).
That's a ridiculous comparison. Do you even know what the word 'jihad' means? In modern Arabic and in Islam it means struggle, both peaceful and violent.

You also didn't refute my claim in anyway. [/b]
Your claim cannot be refuted because I can't know with certainty what goes on inside a jihadist's head.

Yes, I know what Jihad means. I also know that it has been routinely interpreted as a violent struggle against non-Muslims since the dawn of Islam (notice Muhammad's own impressive conquests).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 03:46 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 03:46 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:43 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:15 am
Yes, and not all Nazis killed Jews or even felt very strongly about the matter. That doesn't mean Nazism isn't a violent ideology.

P.S. For the record, I'm not equating Islam with Nazism, I'm just drawing an analogy.
OK. Agreed. So lets apply that to Christianity too while we're at it.

Most Christian men don't make their wives wear head coverings as the Bible dictates or even feel strongly about the matter.

That doesn't mean the Christian faith isn't oppressive.




So we have Islam, Christianity and Nazism and all of them are oppressive.
1. The Bible doesn't dictate head coverings (certainly not in the context of Jesus's New Convenant and Pauline theology).

2. Give me some examples of consistent, recent oppressive behavior by Christians, and I'll concede that the faith is oppressive.

P.S. Once or twice a decade abortion clinic bombers don't count as consistent behavior. [/b]
1.
1 Corinthians 11:1-7
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


2. Providing examples past or present of Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) practices is unnecessary and irrelevent. Christians base their belief in God and their moral values on the Bible. As you stated before, just because members are not actively carrying out the oppressive practices preached in scripture or doctrine does not make the scripture or doctrine itself less oppressive.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:54 am
As for Islam itself some people interpret it for peaceful means while others invoke it for not so peaceful means. It's quite silly lumping every single Muslim on the planet and calling them "violent".
I'm not lumping all Muslims together, and I don't think Islam inspires all its followers to violence. However, I think, historically speaking, Islam clearly tends to produce violent, militant movements (and therefore that Islam as a whole may be classed as a violent belief system, due to its consistent tendancy to inspire such behavior).

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 09:37 pm
I've previously sited my sources for Islamist-caused death tolls (www.thereligionofpeace.com).
I'm not defending Islam, but isn't that a far-right site?

BTW I still think that Inquisition death tolls are downplayed drastically. There are just no reliable records from that period.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:42 am
Yes, I understand that people get involved in the Jihadist movement who aren't necessarily the most sincere Muslims. On the other hand, I think it's simply illogical to argue that Jihadism has nothing to do with religion (or Islam).
Then it is illogical to exclude abortion clinic bombers, groups like "Feed the Children"/"Peter Popoffs Miracle Water Ministry", extremists who beat their wives, and those who protest at homosexuals'/fallen soldiers' funerals in the arguements against Christianity.

If the actions of a minority sect applies to Muslims it applies to Christians as well.
Its just that simple. You cannot pick and choose where logic applies.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 03:59 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 03:59 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:46 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:43 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 03:15 am
Yes, and not all Nazis killed Jews or even felt very strongly about the matter. That doesn't mean Nazism isn't a violent ideology.

P.S. For the record, I'm not equating Islam with Nazism, I'm just drawing an analogy.
OK. Agreed. So lets apply that to Christianity too while we're at it.

Most Christian men don't make their wives wear head coverings as the Bible dictates or even feel strongly about the matter.

That doesn't mean the Christian faith isn't oppressive.




So we have Islam, Christianity and Nazism and all of them are oppressive.
1. The Bible doesn't dictate head coverings (certainly not in the context of Jesus's New Convenant and Pauline theology).

2. Give me some examples of consistent, recent oppressive behavior by Christians, and I'll concede that the faith is oppressive.

P.S. Once or twice a decade abortion clinic bombers don't count as consistent behavior.
1.
1 Corinthians 11:1-7
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


2. Providing examples past or present of Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) practices is unnecessary and irrelevent. Christians base their belief in God and their moral values on the Bible. As you stated before, just because members are not actively carrying out the oppressive practices preached in scripture or doctrine does not make the scripture or doctrine itself less oppressive. [/b]
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

Furthermore, dictates to head coverings are not oppressive (I do not consider Islam oppressive or violent on these grounds).

2. I consider Islam violent because of the constant wars waged in the name of Islam against non-Muslims since the creation of the faith. These wars were initiated by Mohammed himself when he conquered the Arabian peninsula. No original Christian figure espoused violence, and Christianity did not engage in a single major war against non-Christians until the Crusades (1,000 years after the creation of the faith). Neither in doctrine nor (historically speaking) in practice is Christianity violent. Islam is.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 06, 2007 04:05 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 06, 2007 04:05 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 09:37 pm
I've previously sited my sources for Islamist-caused death tolls (www.thereligionofpeace.com).
I'm not defending Islam, but isn't that a far-right site?

BTW I still think that Inquisition death tolls are downplayed drastically. There are just no reliable records from that period. [/b]
The Inquisition records are debatable, but you cannot assume they committed more crimes than we know they did (innocent until proven guilty).

No, thereligionofpeace is not a far-right site. It's actually secular, and provides reliable news from a variety of sources. I encourage you to check it out (for what it's worth, I personally guarantee that it is not an extremist site).

[Lynx]

What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:07 am
Then it is illogical to exclude abortion clinic bombers, groups like "Feed the Children"/"Peter Popoffs Miracle Water Ministry", extremists who beat their wives, and those who protest at homosexuals'/fallen soldiers' funerals in the arguements against Christianity.

If the actions of a minority sect applies to Muslims it applies to Christians as well.
Its just that simple. You cannot pick and choose where logic applies.
Do you not see that there is a difference between a religion that has had less than 100 religiously motivated murders in the several decades (Christianity) and one that has several theocracies and kills around 1,200 people every year in terrorist attacks alone?

Besides, what's violent about charities like Water Ministry or Feed the Children? They've saved thousands of lives.

Finally, idiots who protest at gay funerals are still a far cry from Iranian theocrats who hang teenagers on suspicion of homosexuality, or the Jihadis who behead them.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 10:22 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 10:22 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any. [/b]
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
Do you not see that there is a difference between a religion that has had less than 100 religiously motivated murders in the several decades (Christianity) and one that has several theocracies and kills around 1,200 people every year in terrorist attacks alone?
No, I don't, because there isn't.

A murderer is still a murderer.

Religions aren't corporations, to be ranked by the amount of losses they incur. I refuse to view lives from a capitalist standpoint.

EDIT:I, nor any one else thus far, have disagreed with your criticisms of Islam. What we disagree with is the platform on which you're doing it. Criticising one oppressive group, while turning a blind eye on another.

[Revolution Until Victory]

1- what else would be expected form a capitalits, racist scum like you?

2- Islam, and any ideology, should be analyzed based on what it is, not based on what those who cliam to uphold it do and say. Just coz the imperialists claim they fight for "freedom" doesn't neccesarly mean "freedom" is imperialist aggression and terrorism. The term "freedom" is probably among the most used excuse to commit cimes in history. According to your childish "logic", "freedom" got to be the most violent, terrorist, and disguting concept in history. Hell, Batista himself was a member of the Cuban Communist Party!!! The number of crimes committed in the name of Islam and any other ideology doesn't mean the this specific ideology necessarly accepts those crimes

3- The crimes committed in the name of christianity are much more plenty and ugly than those committed in the name of Islam. But even if it was the other way around, it got nothing to do with the reality of the ideology itself. All you can judge form those cimes are the followers, not the ideology.

4- The reason Islam might be quoted more often for committing crimes (there is no offical statistics for such cliaim anyways) than christiany got to do more with the orgnization and the type of the New Testemant as compared to the Quran, rather than anything else. Unlike the New Testemant, the Quran deals with the most basic details of every day life. In this aspect, the Quran is much more similar to the Old Testmant; that's why the Hebrew Bible is quoted quiet execivley to justify crimes, most notably by the Zionists imperialists.


On the other hand, I think it's simply illogical to argue that Jihadism has nothing to do with religion (or Islam).

yes, harming innocnet civlians, wether muslim or non-muslim, got nothing to do with Islam.


No, thereligionofpeace is not a far-right site. It's actually secular, and provides reliable news from a variety of sources. I encourage you to check it out (for what it's worth, I personally guarantee that it is not an extremist site).

lol, it's a bigoted, right-wing bullshit site, made exaclty for dickheads like your ilk.


2. I consider Islam violent because of the constant wars waged in the name of Islam against non-Muslims since the creation of the faith. These wars were initiated by Mohammed himself when he conquered the Arabian peninsula. No original Christian figure espoused violence, and Christianity did not engage in a single major war against non-Christians until the Crusades (1,000 years after the creation of the faith). Neither in doctrine nor (historically speaking) in practice is Christianity violent. Islam is.

A- Again, an ideology isn't judged based on what its "followers" do and say

B. Those wars that Muhammed were involved in were sefl-defence against the tribes of Arabia who were killing, expelling, and torturing his followers.


Do you not see that there is a difference between a religion that has had less than 100 religiously motivated murders in the several decades (Christianity) and one that has several theocracies and kills around 1,200 people every year in terrorist attacks alone?

that's utter bullshit. no reliable source whatsoever. EVEN if it was true, which it isn't, it still doens't mean anything as far as the ideology itself is concerned.


Give me some examples of consistent, recent oppressive behavior by Christians, and I'll concede that the faith is oppressive.

what an idiot!


I, nor any one else thus far, have disagreed with your criticisms of Islam.

good thing you said "thus far". I certinally don't agree with his right-wing, bigoted lies against Islam.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:10 am
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

So you've clearly pointed out that the Bible takes on a stance similar to southern U.S.'s Jim Crow laws of the mid 1900s.

"Seperate but equal."

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 06, 2007 04:28 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 06, 2007 04:28 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:22 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you? [/b]
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 06, 2007 04:34 am

I, nor any one else thus far, have disagreed with your criticisms of Islam.

good thing you said "thus far". I certinally don't agree with his right-wing, bigoted lies against Islam.
Well I meant in a general sense; that "People of the Islamic faith have killed millions".

That is an undisputable fact.

I certainly don't agree with all the information found on that site of his. NiceFacedZealot.com or whatever it was.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:30 am
No, I don't, because there isn't.

A murderer is still a murderer.

Religions aren't corporations, to be ranked by the amount of losses they incur. I refuse to view lives from a capitalist standpoint.

EDIT:I, nor any one else thus far, have disagreed with your criticisms of Islam. What we disagree with is the platform on which you're doing it. Criticising one oppressive group, while turning a blind eye on another.
I criticize a group that has an objectively worse record than the other groups.

If you wish to treat all religions equally, that's your business (but I assure you, the odds of anyone you know dying at a Christian radical's hands at far less than the odds that he/she will die at the hands of a Muslim extremist).

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 04:37 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 04:37 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:10 am
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

So you've clearly pointed out that the Bible takes on a stance similar to southern U.S.'s Jim Crow laws of the mid 1900s.

"Seperate but equal." [/b]
Where is seperation in that quote? All are one in Christ. Indivisible, united, never to be separate.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

To Revolution Until Victory:

1. You don't know me. You cannot fairly accuse me of being racist or "scum" (after all, I don't even mention race, and I feel I've demonstrated considerably more courtesy that you).

2. Violence has everything to do with Islam; Mohammed himself used it and conquered a large territory for Allah. Are you saying you know Islam better than Mohammed himself?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 10:39 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 10:39 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:28 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:22 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you?
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism. [/b]
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:46 am
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap. [/quote]
What trollishness? You're site has an OI forum just for people like me, right?

That said, I'm glad we could agree on something (though I don't, personally, share your views on religion; just your view on religion and the state).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 04:41 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 04:41 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 04:30 am
No, I don't, because there isn't.

A murderer is still a murderer.

Religions aren't corporations, to be ranked by the amount of losses they incur. I refuse to view lives from a capitalist standpoint.

EDIT:I, nor any one else thus far, have disagreed with your criticisms of Islam. What we disagree with is the platform on which you're doing it. Criticising one oppressive group, while turning a blind eye on another.
I criticize a group that has an objectively worse record than the other groups.

If you wish to treat all religions equally, that's your business (but I assure you, the odds of anyone you know dying at a Christian radical's hands at far less than the odds that he/she will die at the hands of a Muslim extremist). [/b]
Then perhaps I should warn the people I know against both groups?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 04:43 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 04:43 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:37 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:10 am
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

So you've clearly pointed out that the Bible takes on a stance similar to southern U.S.'s Jim Crow laws of the mid 1900s.

"Seperate but equal."
Where is seperation in that quote? All are one in Christ. Indivisible, united, never to be separate. [/b]
The entire Bible is composed of that one quote?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:48 pm

I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap.
What trollishness? You're site has an OI forum just for people like me, right?

That said, I'm glad we could agree on something (though I don't, personally, share your views on religion; just your view on religion and the state). [/quote]
1. You are being a troll. Stop it.

2. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this issue, but with the absolute abysmal record of America's political nature can you not acknowledge that religion will always subvert the seperation between church and state? Why should religion not be prohibited?

[Revolution Until Victory]

Well I meant in a general sense; that "People of the Islamic faith have killed millions".

That is an undisputable fact.

I certainly don't agree with all the information found on that site of his. NiceFacedZealot.com or whatever it was.

sorry for misunderstanding you then.


I criticize a group that has an objectively worse record than the other groups.

1- it is false to cliam that muslims have a wose record

2- EVEN it is true, it would justify your critisim of THAT GROUP, of the FOLLOWRS, not the ideology they cliam to uphold. 2 very different things.


but I assure you, the odds of anyone you know dying at a Christian radical's hands at far less than the odds that he/she will die at the hands of a Muslim extremist

utterly false.


1. You don't know me. You cannot fairly accuse me of being racist or "scum" (after all, I don't even mention race, and I feel I've demonstrated considerably more courtesy that you).

1. I don't have to personally know you to judge if you were racist and scum or not. You views expressed here are quiet enough.


2. Violence has everything to do with Islam; Mohammed himself used it and conquered a large territory for Allah. Are you saying you know Islam better than Mohammed himself?

harming innocent civilians got nothing to do with Islam. Again, Muhamed only fought in wars of self-defence, that were retsticed by many laws that would prevent any harm even against animlas and plants.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 06, 2007 04:46 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 06, 2007 04:46 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:39 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:28 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:22 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you?
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap. [/b]
I'm about as anti-religion as they come, but PROHIBIT religion? That sounds horribly authoritarian. People should be able to believe whatever silly shit they want.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Agora77+December 05, 2007 11:00 pm--> (Agora77 @ December 05, 2007 11:00 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:46 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:39 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:28 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:22 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you?
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap.
I'm about as anti-religion as they come, but PROHIBIT religion? That sounds horribly authoritarian. People should be able to believe whatever silly shit they want. [/b]
It is authoritarian. I am an authoritarian Communist who believes in the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The late, great Comrade Enver Hoxha prohibited religion in 1967 in Albania and any revolutionary state I'd support will ban it accordingly.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 04:50 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 04:50 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:43 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:37 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:10 am
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

So you've clearly pointed out that the Bible takes on a stance similar to southern U.S.'s Jim Crow laws of the mid 1900s.

"Seperate but equal."
Where is seperation in that quote? All are one in Christ. Indivisible, united, never to be separate.
The entire Bible is composed of that one quote? [/b]
Find separate but equal in the Bible (New Testament please, since Jesus formed a new convenant and the old is no longer applicable). Please do. Also, find any call to violence in the whole of the New Testament (again, the Old Testament doesn't apply under Christian theology).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 06, 2007 05:04 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 06, 2007 05:04 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:00 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:46 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:39 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:28 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:22 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you?
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap.
I'm about as anti-religion as they come, but PROHIBIT religion? That sounds horribly authoritarian. People should be able to believe whatever silly shit they want.
It is authoritarian. I am an authoritarian Communist who believes in the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The late, great Comrade Enver Hoxha prohibited religion in 1967 in Albania and any revolutionary state I'd support will ban it accordingly. [/b]
Oh, OK. You're a Stalinist. That explains a lot.

Hopefully, if any Stalinist actually comes anywhere close to power in the near future, they will be ruthlessly cut down. I don't tolerate violence, unless of course it's directed at Fascists or Stalinists.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 06, 2007 04:59 am
sorry for misunderstanding you then.

1- it is false to cliam that muslims have a wose record

2- EVEN it is true, it would justify your critisim of THAT GROUP, of the FOLLOWRS, not the ideology they cliam to uphold. 2 very different things.

utterly false.

1. I don't have to personally know you to judge if you were racist and scum or not. You views expressed here are quiet enough.

harming innocent civilians got nothing to do with Islam. Again, Muhamed only fought in wars of self-defence, that were retsticed by many laws that would prevent any harm even against animlas and plants.
Glad we could become more civil.

As for the rest of the disagreements: it seems that we're just starting from fundamentally different assumptions.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

P.S. How is conquering the Arabian Peninsula a defensive war?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Agora77+December 05, 2007 11:10 pm--> (Agora77 @ December 05, 2007 11:10 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 05:04 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:00 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:46 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:39 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:28 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:22 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:17 am
What is the point of asking if Islam is inherently violent? Are you advocating a policy adjustment? We already have a War on "Terror"...
The primary reason is academic interest.

I do think that the US approach to Islam is illogical; however, I don't have any specific policy adjustments in mind, and I'm certainly not advocating any.
I advocate a secular, officially atheist state, what about you?
I advocate a secular state that doesn't concern itself with metaphysical questions; consequently, my ideal state wouldn't have an official policy on atheism.
That's good. I'm more irreligious than atheist. It's not even a question with me--it's like as if someone asks me about the Easter bunny.

Religion is so obviously false that it doesn't deserve a debate, it should just be prohibited.


You've made a good point, but please knock it off with the trollish crap.
I'm about as anti-religion as they come, but PROHIBIT religion? That sounds horribly authoritarian. People should be able to believe whatever silly shit they want.
It is authoritarian. I am an authoritarian Communist who believes in the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The late, great Comrade Enver Hoxha prohibited religion in 1967 in Albania and any revolutionary state I'd support will ban it accordingly.
Oh, OK. You're a Stalinist. That explains a lot.

Hopefully, if any Stalinist actually comes anywhere close to power in the near future, they will be ruthlessly cut down. I don't tolerate violence, unless of course it's directed at Fascists or Stalinists. [/b]
Well of course a capitalist defender of religion would say that!

It's nice to see how truly anti-working class you actually are.
[img]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/freakazoid_fail.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[Revolution Until Victory]

Glad we could become more civil.

As for the rest of the disagreements: it seems that we're just starting from fundamentally different assumptions.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

sound like a great idea!! I have the honor to agree to disagree with a person like you.


P.S. How is conquering the Arabian Peninsula a defensive war?

The Muslims led by Muhammed conqured the Arabian peninsula after wining decsive battles against certian powerful tribes. Those battles were in self-defence after Muhammed and his followers refused to respond with violence for the torture and murder they were facing for 13 years. After that, they decided to defend themselves, and were able to diminsh the authority of those specific tribes, thus, establishing thier own authority and conquering Arabia.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:00 am
I'm about as anti-religion as they come, but PROHIBIT religion? That sounds horribly authoritarian. People should be able to believe whatever silly shit they want.
Left wing politics could never work with religion.

Nor could they never be put into practice with people believing "whatever silly shit they want", when that "silly shit" is inherently authoritarian as well as mysogynistic, racist, homophobic and expouses a myriad of oppressive ideas contrary to leftist world view.

But you definately couldn't outlaw religion, either. Such a law is completely unenforcable, not to mention utterly contrary to the leftist goal of human freedom.

Which is why it is so vital that we teach people about the illogical and downright oppressive nature of religion.

Obviously it is a much more rigorous process to carry out. But in the long term scheme of things, the most successful.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 05:08 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 05:08 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:50 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:43 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:37 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:10 am
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

So you've clearly pointed out that the Bible takes on a stance similar to southern U.S.'s Jim Crow laws of the mid 1900s.

"Seperate but equal."
Where is seperation in that quote? All are one in Christ. Indivisible, united, never to be separate.
The entire Bible is composed of that one quote?
Find separate but equal in the Bible (New Testament please, since Jesus formed a new convenant and the old is no longer applicable). Please do. Also, find any call to violence in the whole of the New Testament (again, the Old Testament doesn't apply under Christian theology). [/b]
I just found it.

The two contradicting scriptures (the one you posted, and the one I posted), imply that the Christian God views women as equal to men, but subjects them to seperate relgious practices.

Men and women are equal, but women must cover their heads.

Seperate but equal.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 05, 2007 11:30 pm--> (counterblast @ December 05, 2007 11:30 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 05:00 am
I'm about as anti-religion as they come, but PROHIBIT religion? That sounds horribly authoritarian. People should be able to believe whatever silly shit they want.
Left wing politics could never work with religion.

Nor could they never be put into practice with people believing "whatever silly shit they want", when that "silly shit" is inherently authoritarian as well as mysogynistic, racist, homophobic and expouses a myriad of oppressive ideas contrary to leftist world view.

But you definately couldn't outlaw religion, either. Such a law is completely unenforcable, not to mention utterly contrary to the leftist goal of human freedom.

Which is why it is so vital that we teach people about the illogical and downright oppressive nature of religion.

Obviously it is a much more rigorous process to carry out. But in the long term scheme of things, the most successful. [/b]
Outlawing it will be hard, but totally enforceable. Maybe with difficulty, but possible. And necessary.

It will also be necessary for the DotP and Party to educate people into alternative means of thinking, but outlawing religion will be necessary as we will have to dispose of the religious hierarchy. Look at the contemporary situation, American clergy are acting reactionary against the growing atheism in intellectual bastions such as colleges and universities and opening right-Christian institutes like Ave Maria.

[counterblast]

New Testament please, since Jesus formed a new convenant and the old is no longer applicable

Most Christians would disagree with you. The Ten Commandments are the most universally accepted and highly regarded Christian law.

EDIT: By the by, in Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus clearly states that the Old Testament is still applicable;

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

[synthesis]

2. I consider Islam violent because of the constant wars waged in the name of Islam against non-Muslims since the creation of the faith.

People have been waging wars in the name of Christianity against "pagans" and "heretics" for fifteen hundred years.

Understand first that religion is a product of material conditions, and if the circumstances allow for imperialism and repression then people will take advantage of it.

Arab society, which was largely polytheistic during Muhammad's time, needed an indigenous alternative to Roman Christianity and Iranian Zoroastrianism. This was the genesis of Islam, and also occurred in a society with a widespread practice of razzia, or plunder.

The professor of Islamic Studies at Edinburgh had this to say:

'Thus, whether Muhammad incited his followers to action and then used the wrongs committed against them to justify it, or whether he yielded to pressure from them to allow such action, the normal Arab practice of the razzia was taken over by the Islamic community. In being taken over, however, it was transformed. It became an activity of believers against unbelievers, and therefore took place within a religious context."

Islam was "the total response of Muhammad's personality to the total situation in which he found himself. He was responding [not only]... to the religious and intellectual aspects of the situation but also to the economic, social, and political pressures to which contemporary Mecca was subject."

Islam was very progressive for its time. It attempted to abolish pagan practices such as female infanticide, blood feuds, and execution of captives, among many other positive social reforms for the time.


These wars were initiated by Mohammed himself when he conquered the Arabian peninsula.

Yes, because Mohammed was a political as well as a religious leader, and people did things like that back then. Read the above quotation regarding razzia; this was par for the course.

But was it as terrible as it seems? Undoubtedly there was suffering, but they suffered far less than, say, the victims of the Albigensian crusade, which was also partially motivated by the desire for land.

A Professor of Islamic Studies at NYU had this to say:

" The conquests destroyed little: what they did suppress were imperial rivalries and sectarian bloodletting among the newly subjected population. The Muslims tolerated Christianity, but they disestablished it; henceforward Christian life and liturgy, its endowments, politics and theology, would be a private and not a public affair. By an exquisite irony, Islam reduced the status of Christians to that which the Christians had earlier thrust upon the Jews, with one difference. The reduction in Christian status was merely judicial; it was unaccompanied by either systematic persecution or a blood lust, and generally, though not elsewhere and at all times, unmarred by vexatious behavior."

Muslims even allowed religious freedom for groups like the Jacobites and the Nestorians who were labeled heretical and persecuted by Christian rulers.


Christianity did not engage in a single major war against non-Christians until the Crusades

Totally ahistorical. Research the Roman-Persian Wars or the Byzantine-Arab Wars.


Neither in doctrine nor (historically speaking) in practice is Christianity violent. Islam is.

Hilarious. Anything goes when you make the logic fit your assumptions. There is plenty of violence in both Christian and Islamic societies; the difference is that in a Christian society you argue that none of this violence is attributable to Christianity, meanwhile Islam should be culpable for all the violence of Muslim society. This is what we call a "double standard."


No original Christian figure espoused violence.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." -Jesus

[daniyaal]

Most Christians would disagree with you. The Ten Commandments are the most universally accepted and highly regarded Christian law.

The 10 commandments are the ethical code of Judaism...not Christianity.

The greatest command for Christians is to \"love the Lord your God.\" The second greatest is to \"love your neighbour as your brother (or self).\" There is also turn the other cheek, love your enemies, go the extra mile, and the great commissions (which is go out, convert, and baptize in the name of Jesus).


By the by, in Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus clearly states that the Old Testament is still applicable

As far as Jesus saying he didn\'t abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn\'t rejecting God\'s laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fullfilled.

[daniyaal]

\"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man\'s foes shall be they of his own household.\" -Jesus

The passage is a prophecy that to convert to Christianity can mean putting oneself at odds with ones own non-Christian family.

To interpret this text literally as a call to familial violence rather than as allegory is not only to misunderstand Jesus, but also the poetic nature of the New Testament. Even through history, Christians have never taken this passage or others from the NT as marching orders.

The non-literal interpretation of the sword is confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 \"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.\"

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:24 am

As far as Jesus saying he didn\'t abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn\'t rejecting God\'s laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fullfilled.
Where in the Bible does it say that is what Jesus meant?

Or are you just making it up to support your ideology?

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 06:34 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 06:34 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 06:24 am

As far as Jesus saying he didn\\\'t abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn\\\'t rejecting God\\\'s laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fullfilled.
Where in the Bible does it say that is what Jesus meant?

Or are you just making it up to support your ideology? [/b]
Hebrew 8:13 \"By calling this covenant \'new,\' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.\"

[Knight of Cydonia]

after finish reading this pointless thread, one thing come in my mind, Unapologetic Capitalist by making this thread, are you trying to let other know and declaring yourself that you were Islamophobic?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 11:58 pm
Your claim cannot be refuted because I can't know with certainty what goes on inside a jihadist's head.

Yes, I know what Jihad means. I also know that it has been routinely interpreted as a violent struggle against non-Muslims since the dawn of Islam (notice Muhammad's own impressive conquests).
You don't have to inside a 'jihadists' head to refute what I'm saying because it’s clear that what they are doing is political and not religious and that they are more motivated by socio-economic and political reasons than religious. Which is to say this has everything to do with the class struggle and little to do with 'Allah'. Infact in Islam, there is two 'jihads', the greater and the lesser. The greater jihad is inner 'spiritual' struggle against vices, temptations and so forth. The lesser jihad, is defensive conflict and is something that can't or shouldn't be called arbitrarily. So which jihad do you think is more important? Greater or lesser? Muhammad himself signed peace treaties with both Christians and Pagans, so I'm not really buying into this whole, 'Islam (or any religion) is inherently violent' bullshit because where said violence occurs it has to do with politics and the class struggle and not religion.

[graffic]

Why the fuck are there four pages of "leftists" defending Islam?

The Capitalist has stated a fact. Islam has caused more bloodshed than any other relgion in history. Politics isnt a football game, just because the Christian Right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:04 am
Why the fuck are there four pages of "leftists" defending Islam?
"Men's ideas are the most direct emanations of their material state."-Karl Marx.

"The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles."-Karl Marx.

The bloodshed both past and present is political not religious nor an inherent part of a religion.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:04 am
Why the fuck are there four pages of "leftists" defending Islam?

The Capitalist has stated a fact. Islam has caused more bloodshed than any other relgion in history. Politics isnt a football game, just because the Christian Right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it.
There is plenty of violence in both Christian and Islamic societies; the difference is that in a Christian society you argue that none of this violence is attributable to Christianity, meanwhile Islam should be culpable for all the violence of Muslim society. This is what we call a "double standard."

No, to focus on Islam exclusively as a source of violence is playing directly into the hands of the ruling class. Islam is not inherently more violent than Christianity; perhaps the reason the Islamic world is more violent than the Western world today could be related to the reason why Latin America was more violent than the Western world in the 60's and 70's.

Perhaps resistance to imperialism takes the form of radical Islam in the Middle East, much the same way that it sometimes borrowed from indigenous religion in Africa.

The fact is that Muslims have things that America wants, like natural resources and labor power. If the ruling class can create the illusion that the worldview of Islam is wrong and we owe it to Muslims to democratize their society and abolish their bloody, sadistic religion, then they have created domestic support for neo-colonialism and exploitation, even among the people who are supposed to know better.

The fact that some Muslim rulers, like the Taliban, are "Islamic" and "bad" does not mean that "Islam" is "bad." Islam is not inherently more reactionary than Judaism or Christianity; in fact it can often be more progressive.

All we get out of this propaganda is that it is OK to disregard what Muslim civilians "want" because "Islam is bad" and "they should be converted to our line of thinking."

What about what they want?

[daniyaal]

I\'m saying because it’s clear that what they are doing is political and not religious and that they are more motivated by socio-economic and political reasons than religious.

What is the political motivation of suicide bombers who target Shia mosques and markets?


Infact in Islam, there is two \'jihads\', the greater and the lesser. The greater jihad is inner \'spiritual\' struggle against vices, temptations and so forth.

The saying, \"We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)\" which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.

http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad..._conclusion.htm (http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_caravan_6_conclusion.htm)

Ibnu Taimiyyah states: \"There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet (s.a.w) said after the battle of Tabuk: \'We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser] to Jihad Akbar\' [greater]. This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.\" [Refer: Al Furqan baina Auliyair Rahman wa Auliyaisy Shaitaan, matter 44-45].

Yes, there are passages in the Qur\'an that indicate a peaceful nature or a violent one. Passages in the Second surah for example seem to suggest war only if attacked first. While the ninth and fifth surahs speak of Muslims taking the offensive and killing infidels where they find them. So here is where a very important concept comes in- abrogation. Basically the newer verses override the conflicting prior verses. Chronologically the Fifth and ninth Surah were the very last revealed, therefore replacing the seemingly defensive verses with offensive ones.

Another key point is Islam\'s history. Is wasn\'t the Meccan\'s who drew blood first, it was the Muslims. Right after they migrated to Medina they began raiding local Meccan caravans. Muhammad participated in 74 raids, which of only two were defensive.

[synthesis]

What is the political motivation of suicide bombers who target Shia mosques and markets?

Fuck those Shias! They did this, that, and the other to my family/political/religious leaders. And vice versa.

Issues of dogma rarely cause bloodshed in any religion until material conditions are factored in.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 04:43 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 04:43 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:37 am

Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:10 am
1. In the context of the letter (and his larger writings), it becomes fairly clear that Paul was trying to stress chastity and order, not actually imposing sumptuary laws. Also note: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul preached gender equality.

So you've clearly pointed out that the Bible takes on a stance similar to southern U.S.'s Jim Crow laws of the mid 1900s.

"Seperate but equal."
Where is seperation in that quote? All are one in Christ. Indivisible, united, never to be separate. [/b]
Here are some scripture quotations to prove Counterblast's point, about how christian men and women are separate but equal. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_abo...ens_rights.html (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/womens_rights.html) Here are some pictures of christian women wearing headcoverings. [img]http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/65/66/22906665.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' /> [img]http://plainlydressed.bravepages.com/images/mennogirls1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' /> Here are some christian atrocities, and or violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chivington http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/chris...-terrorism.html (http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/christian-india-terrorism.html) http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/chris...atrocities.html (http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/christian-missionary-atrocities.html) http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri..._viol_index.htm (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm)

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 06, 2007 08:16 pm



What is the political motivation of suicide bombers who target Shia mosques and markets?

Fuck those Shias! They did this, that, and the other to my family/political/religious leaders. And vice versa.

Issues of dogma rarely cause bloodshed in any religion until material conditions are factored in.
That doesn\'t explain what motivates suicides bombers who aren\'t Iraqi to kill anyone who isn\'t a Sunni.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by daniyaal+December 06, 2007 04:04 pm--> (daniyaal @ December 06, 2007 04:04 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 06, 2007 08:16 pm



What is the political motivation of suicide bombers who target Shia mosques and markets?

Fuck those Shias! They did this, that, and the other to my family/political/religious leaders. And vice versa.

Issues of dogma rarely cause bloodshed in any religion until material conditions are factored in.
That doesn\'t explain what motivates suicides bombers who aren\'t Iraqi to kill anyone who isn\'t a Sunni. [/b]
As if Catholics never killed Protestants for religious reasons, or vice versa.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:04 pm
Why the fuck are there four pages of "leftists" defending Islam?


and why the fuck that you bother to read and post on it?&#33; <_<

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:32 am
&#092;"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man&#092;&#39;s foes shall be they of his own household.&#092;" -Jesus

The passage is a prophecy that to convert to Christianity can mean putting oneself at odds with ones own non-Christian family.

To interpret this text literally as a call to familial violence rather than as allegory is not only to misunderstand Jesus, but also the poetic nature of the New Testament. Even through history, Christians have never taken this passage or others from the NT as marching orders.

The non-literal interpretation of the sword is confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 &#092;"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled&#33; 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed&#33; 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.&#092;"
The fact that it is violence against the father or mother primarily gives recognition to its true meaning: that of violent revolution.


Why the fuck are there four pages of "leftists" defending Islam?

The Capitalist has stated a fact. Islam has caused more bloodshed than any other relgion in history. Politics isnt a football game, just because the Christian Right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it.
Has Islam, really? The crusades were started by Christians; current middle east strife was started by Christians. Even Isreal is to blame on Christianity rather than Jews; it was racism against Jews that created the colonial power.

I don&#39;t much care about defendign the religion itself, but when you attack a set of ideas and claim that certain traits exist within it, especially violent ones, you are making a bad mark on all the people who adhere to the religion. And I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair to claim that Islam is primarily violent.

[Marsella]

The Capitalist has stated a fact. Islam has caused more bloodshed than any other relgion in history. Politics isnt a football game, just because the Christian Right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it.

[img]http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/273.GIF' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[img]http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/455.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />


The bloodshed both past and present is political not religious nor an inherent part of a religion.

Spot on.

Religion certainly does have reactionary shite (homophobia, patriarchy, idealism, individualist worship) apart from just being plain wrong and a waste of one&#39;s Sundays (or whatever praying hours).

But it is used to justify political stances, whatever they may be:

[img]http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/174.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

Usually it turns out to be the stance of the ruling class (i.e. work is good for the soul)

It should be opposed for both reasons.

[Cryotank Screams]

What is the political motivation of suicide bombers who target Shia mosques and markets?

“Under Saddam, the Sunnis ruled Iraq, even though they were the minority. But throughout the world, Sunnis vastly outnumber Shiites. There are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims, and only about 15 percent are Shiites. But Shia are the majority in Iraq and the overwhelming majority in Iran, which the Ayatollah Khomeini transformed from a secular state into an Islamic one when his followers overthrew the Shah in 1979. Nasr says Khomeini claimed to be the supreme leader of all Muslims.”-Lucky Severson.

“Shiites, in particular, have a history of persecution, because they were the underdogs. They lost to the Sunnis early on. Their various saints were killed, and most important of them was the Prophet&#39;s grandson by the name of Hussein, who was killed at the battle of Karbala. And the brutal way in which he was killed essentially galvanized Shiism.

…

The more Khomeini tried to say that he is the Islamic leader, the more Saudi Arabia and their allies in the rest of the Muslim world began to say, "No, no, no, you&#39;re a Shia."-Vali Nasr.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/...1005/cover.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1005/cover.html)

It’s very clear that violence among various sects is motivated by politics and material history and struggle.

I concede to your comments on ‘jihad.’


abrogation.

“The abrogation of verses cannot be proved unless there is a crystal clear statement reported to have been made by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or one of his Companions, saying, "Verse number so-and-so has been abrogated by verse number so-and-so."- Mohammed Salim Al’awa.

As for Muhammad and friends raiding and so forth again, it was socio-economic and political that was further validated by religion and cleaning up Mecca for ‘Allah’.

In my opinion the Qu’ran, Bible or any other book can be twisted to generally validate any opinion one might have, whether it be violent, peaceful or otherwise.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:04 pm
Why the fuck are there four pages of "leftists" defending Islam?

The Capitalist has stated a fact. Islam has caused more bloodshed than any other relgion in history. Politics isnt a football game, just because the Christian Right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it.
I never defended Islam. Nor did any of the previous posters that I saw.

I argued against his premise that "Islam is inherently evil, but Christianity and other religions are not."

[jasmine]

I argued against his premise that "Islam is inherently evil, but Christianity and other religions are not."

You were right&#33;

The idea that Islam is more evil than christianity is a simple reflection of the "war on terror" etc. At bottom it&#39;s racist. And if we want to remember some of the crimes carried out in the name of christianity let&#39;s not forget the various inquisitions that spanned several hundred years across Europe and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

And, I think this may be a first, I agree with Cryotank that, regardless of the subjective motive of the perpertrator, most acts carried out in the name of religion are politically/economically/socially driven. This certainly seems to be the case, for example, for the Spanish inquisitionand later protestant inquisitions (in many ways more vicious).

Also, let&#39;s not forget that the adoption of Christianty by the Roman empire had nothing to do with Constantine&#39;s conversion and everything to do with the need for an authoritarian ideology to consolidate a crumbling empire.

[graffic]

Lets study the teachings of Jesus Christ and Mohammed. The argument here is that Islam teaches violence whereas Christianity doesnt, Christianity is strictly pacifist.

You will get the KKK and the crusaders who claim to be "Christians", the quite clear difference is that these guys were not claiming their Jesus wanted them to commit those particular acts, or even if they did claim Jesus told them too, there&#39;s no scriptures in the Bible to back them up.

This is not the case in the Korahn. Allah was not the "One God", he was one of 364 tribal Gods worshipped by desert nomads in ancient times. Once Mohammed&#39;s tribe had defeated (through violence) the other desert tribes, he elevated his God over all the others, and cried out, "Allah hu-akbar&#33;" (Allah is greater).

Mohammed killed thousands of people through his crusades. Now lets look at Christianity and Jesus Christ. Jesus didnt kill anyone. His instructions were to "Love your enemys", treat others how you would like to be treated yourselves. This was backed up in his biblically recorded actions. Again quite the contrary in the Korahn.

Of course I agree that any religon has the power to cause just as much violence as any other. You cannot however say that the Christian teachings are as bad as the Muslim teachings in the Korahn, because as much as you would love to believe it - its simply not true. And it sickens me watching "leftists" desperately digging up passages from the Korahn trying to prove it is a peaceful religon.

[Lynx]

How then, do most muslims avoid becoming violent fanatics?

[Revolution Until Victory]

How then, do most muslims avoid becoming violent fanatics?

just ignore graffic, a Zionist, pro-imperialist, anti-leftist, racist and biogted troll. Don&#39;t even bother.


You will get the KKK and the crusaders who claim to be "Christians", the quite clear difference is that these guys were not claiming their Jesus wanted them to commit those particular acts, or even if they did claim Jesus told them too, there&#39;s no scriptures in the Bible to back them up.

typical nonsense and childish crap from this piece of shit. First of all, the above statment is false. Second of all, the massive and disgusting crimes commited in the name of chrsitanity are not only the KKK and the cursades. Besides, all that matters is that they committed thier crime in the name of chrstiantiy, wether there is scriputre to back this up or not is irrelivant. Indeed, no scripture can be found to back any crime against innocnet civlians in the Quran anyways.


This is not the case in the Korahn. Allah was not the "One God", he was one of 364 tribal Gods worshipped by desert nomads in ancient times. Once Mohammed&#39;s tribe had defeated (through violence) the other desert tribes, he elevated his God over all the others, and cried out, "Allah hu-akbar&#33;" (Allah is greater).

Dipshit, Muhammed and his followers defened themselvs and fought those tribes after waiting a long 13 years of torture, expulsion, and killing and refusing to fight. They were being targeted by the Arabian tribes becasue Muhammed believed in the one God. So Muhammed didn&#39;t claim the God he believes in is better than the supposed rest AFTER the wars with the tribes, rather, before, way before.


Mohammed killed thousands of people through his crusades.

it is estimated that around 700 people were killed on both sides as a result of those battles.


Of course I agree that any religon has the power to cause just as much violence as any other. You cannot however say that the Christian teachings are as bad as the Muslim teachings in the Korahn, because as much as you would love to believe it - its simply not true

if by "violence&#39; you mean self-defence and refusing to surrunder, then yes, Islam is guilty of that crime. Islam allows self-defence against opression, as a last resort and with many restricitons.

[jasmine]

Now lets look at Christianity and Jesus Christ. Jesus didnt kill anyone. His instructions were to "Love your enemys", treat others how you would like to be treated yourselves. This was backed up in his biblically recorded actions. Again quite the contrary in the Korahn.

Unfortunately Christians have ignored these injunctions for milenia. In fact ever since the founding of the christian churches. Jesus didn&#39;t instruct anyone to burn witches. Nor did he instruct anyone to support the extermination of the Jews. The list is bloody and endless. And by the way most of christianity embraces both the old and new testaments which tends to muddy the scriptural waters.

[synthesis]

This is not the case in the Korahn. Allah was not the "One God", he was one of 364 tribal Gods worshipped by desert nomads in ancient times. Once Mohammed&#39;s tribe had defeated (through violence) the other desert tribes, he elevated his God over all the others, and cried out, "Allah hu-akbar&#33;" (Allah is greater).

This is totally ridiculous. I don&#39;t understand how you can waste so much time disparaging Islam when you know so little about it.

Allah is not a tribal God; Islam is a recognized Abrahamic faith and was the indigenous monotheistic reaction to contemporary paganism and the monotheism of foreign empires, namely the Christian Byzantines and the Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians. "Allah" is just the Arabic word for "God."

Not that anything else really needs to be said to totally discredit your argument, but most Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians use the word "Allah" for "God," as well. Christian Arabs do not use any word for "God" except "Allah."

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:12 pm
Lets study the teachings of Jesus Christ and Mohammed. The argument here is that Islam teaches violence whereas Christianity doesnt, Christianity is strictly pacifist.

You will get the KKK and the crusaders who claim to be "Christians", the quite clear difference is that these guys were not claiming their Jesus wanted them to commit those particular acts, or even if they did claim Jesus told them too, there&#39;s no scriptures in the Bible to back them up.
Yes they did, and yes there is. Ther is loads of scripture, not just in the old but also the new testaments, which advocate violence especially against non-believers and &#39;sinners.&#39;


This is not the case in the Korahn. Allah was not the "One God", he was one of 364 tribal Gods worshipped by desert nomads in ancient times. Once Mohammed&#39;s tribe had defeated (through violence) the other desert tribes, he elevated his God over all the others, and cried out, "Allah hu-akbar&#33;" (Allah is greater).
Just as &#39;Yahweh&#39; is Hebrew for &#39;god&#39; and refers to the "one true god," so also is &#39;Allah&#39; Arabic for &#39;god.&#39; The difference is only language, and th claim you make to the beginnign of the Islamic religion is clearly both false and an attempt to paint Islam in a negative light.


Mohammed killed thousands of people through his crusades. Now lets look at Christianity and Jesus Christ. Jesus didnt kill anyone. His instructions were to "Love your enemys", treat others how you would like to be treated yourselves. This was backed up in his biblically recorded actions. Again quite the contrary in the Korahn.
..and also to kill your immediate family members if they weren&#39;t followers. Also, Islam has the following quote as tradition:

"Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13


Of course I agree that any religon has the power to cause just as much violence as any other. You cannot however say that the Christian teachings are as bad as the Muslim teachings in the Korahn, because as much as you would love to believe it - its simply not true. And it sickens me watching "leftists" desperately digging up passages from the Korahn trying to prove it is a peaceful religon.
That&#39;s because you&#39;re an ignorant racist. You want to find fault with Islam, and you will go far enough to claim that Islam-related struggles are about religion (Palestine, for example).

If you take any religion for only its scriptural teachings, I believe you will find that Judaism is the most restrictive, violent and contradictoy belief system - not because of any tradition, but simply because there is such a plethora of knowledge on the religion in the Torah which far outsrips the traditional works of both Islam and Christianity. You will find that Christianity is just as violent as Islam, with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.

But if you care to measure religion in any meaningful sense - that is, in its traditions - you will find a myriad of beuaty and culture, not just some bullshit to hide behind for racist ideology. And you will learn that religions are not violent things to be judged like corporations, but simply belief systems and cultural heritage.

I have no doubt that I&#39;m ten times more disgusted at you for beign such a racist piece of shit than you are that leftists don&#39;t hold disgusting, hateful beliefs towards those you do.

[graffic]

Besides, all that matters is that they committed thier crime in the name of chrstiantiy, wether there is scriputre to back this up or not is irrelivant

The Topic of the thread is - "Is Islam inherently Violent?"


Dipshit, Muhammed and his followers defened themselvs and fought those tribes after waiting a long 13 years of torture, expulsion, and killing and refusing to fight. They were being targeted by the Arabian tribes becasue Muhammed believed in the one God. So Muhammed didn&#39;t claim the God he believes in is better than the supposed rest AFTER the wars with the tribes, rather, before, way before.

My argument still stands that Muhammed killed thousands of people during his "crusade" and Jesus Christ killed zero people. This is presuming we are taking the Korahn as historical fact - which it isnt. The teachings of Mohammed in the Korahn are inheritantly more violent than the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.



if by "violence&#39; you mean self-defence and refusing to surrunder, then yes, Islam is guilty of that crime.

By "Violence" I mean "killing people".

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 03:00 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:55 am
OK, in order for a war to be "religious", it doesn&#39;t have to be an epic struggle between two major religions; wars within religious factions are religious wars as well. Catholics vs. Protestants, Sunnis vs. Shia, etc.

Second, who cares if Islam is more violent? Is the Christian cult of the spaghetti monster any less idiotic than the Islamic cult of the spaghetti monster?
But the 30 Years War wasn&#39;t between religious factions. Religion wasn&#39;t a motivating factor; the decline of the Holy Roman Empire was.

Who cares if Islam is more violent? That&#39;s essentially asking: "Who cares if almost 2 billion people are members of a dangerous and rapidly growing violent cult?" Personally, I think just about everyone should be concerned. [/b]
Islam is a bit more progressive than the other popular religions, but that&#39;s because it&#39;s the youngest of the three largest religions in the world. However, it&#39;s barely progressive. BARELY. Besides it having several egalitarian principles, it has the Sharia Law, it&#39;s expansionist principles, it&#39;s regressive qualities dealing with people of other religions, it&#39;s warrior-cult, and the tyrant king called Allah. Allah, who in Islam "controls everything and lets nothing happen without his permission". Meaning, war, famine, disease, starvation, droughts, democides, genocides, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, and other terrible things. It is just like Christianity and Judaism in this way. Don&#39;t believe me? The Qur&#39;an is based off of the Torah, the Bible, and the Sunnah. Christianity has proven itself to be the most regressive, Judaism on it&#39;s tail, and Islam catching up. The Bible explains in detail the most horrid things "God" did. In the Bible, God burned two children for not giving an offering correctly. He was also the reason why all those plagues hit Egypt. The Pharoah kept saying he would set the Israelis free, but in the Bible "God" "hardened his heart" and kept him from doing so about 8 times and released 8 plagues before he could set him free. The last plague killed all the newbornes in Egypt, sparing all the Israeli children. God, not Hitler, invented genocide. "God" continued killing the Israelites when they make mistakes. "God" made the 10 commandments, where primitive laws were made, such as killing homosexuals, killing people who believe things differently, killing people who have sex before marriage, killing those who steal, killing those who lie, killing those who worship other gods, killing everyone in a village when you invade it if they don&#39;t surrender, and if they surrender, you kill everyone and keep the women as your WIVES&#33; Yes people, the Bible DOES promote POLYGAMY&#33; Also, it contradicts itself when Prophets commit ADULTURY, and they are not killed&#33; Need I go on? I will have to say, now that I think about it, all three of these damn religions are fucking primitive; I&#39;M GLAD THERE IS NO GOD.

I base my argument off of the "God: The Origional Fascist" article.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Islam: Fucked up.
Christianity: Fucked up more.
Judaism: Fucked up, but doesn&#39;t have 2 fucked up testaments.

[synthesis]

My argument still stands that Muhammed killed thousands of people during his "crusade" and Jesus Christ killed zero people.

Jesus never had the chance, they hung him up too quick. Didn&#39;t take too long for his disciples to get it started, though.



By "Violence" I mean "killing people".

Yeah, because you&#39;re an imperialist troll.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Jesus never had the chance, they hung him up too quick. Didn&#39;t take too long for his disciples to get it started, though.

yup, and actually, it is estimated that Muhammed have only killed one single person, and this person was running streight at him with a sowrd to kill him, and Muhammed had to defened himself.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

My argument still stands that Muhammed killed thousands of people during his "crusade" and Jesus Christ killed zero people. This is presuming we are taking the Korahn as historical fact - which it isnt. The teachings of Mohammed in the Korahn are inheritantly more violent than the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Jesus didn&#39;t have to. He started a religion that did it for him.

[Revolution Until Victory]

My argument still stands that Muhammed killed thousands of people during his "crusade" and Jesus Christ killed zero people. This is presuming we are taking the Korahn as historical fact - which it isnt. The teachings of Mohammed in the Korahn are inheritantly more violent than the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

and btw, no, you argument doesn&#39;t still stand. But what would we expect from a troll like you anyway??

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:59 pm

Now lets look at Christianity and Jesus Christ. Jesus didnt kill anyone. His instructions were to &#092;"Love your enemys&#092;", treat others how you would like to be treated yourselves. This was backed up in his biblically recorded actions. Again quite the contrary in the Korahn.

Unfortunately Christians have ignored these injunctions for milenia. In fact ever since the founding of the christian churches. Jesus didn&#092;&#39;t instruct anyone to burn witches. Nor did he instruct anyone to support the extermination of the Jews. The list is bloody and endless. And by the way most of christianity embraces both the old and new testaments which tends to muddy the scriptural waters.
Two out of every five Americans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. That&#092;&#39;s over 120 million.

Does the sun revolve around the Earth?

While people have different beliefs about what Christianity is (just like people have different beliefs about how our solar system works), that does not make them correct or religious authorities.

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 10, 2007 10:51 pm


My argument still stands that Muhammed killed thousands of people during his &#092;&#092;&#092;"crusade&#092;&#092;&#092;" and Jesus Christ killed zero people.

Jesus never had the chance, they hung him up too quick. Didn&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;t take too long for his disciples to get it started, though.



By &#092;&#092;&#092;"Violence&#092;&#092;&#092;" I mean &#092;&#092;&#092;"killing people&#092;&#092;&#092;".

Yeah, because you&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;re an imperialist troll.
Too bad three centuries of Christian pacifism blows that out of the water.

Dean:


not just in the old but also the new testaments, which advocate violence especially against non-believers and &#092;&#39;sinners.&#092;&#39;

None condoning violence. Peter&#092;&#39;s act in the garden is violent as is the crucifixion of Christ and the persecutions in Acts. However, there is never prescriptions for Christians to be violent nor descriptions of Christians being violent after the garden where Peter is rebuked for attacking someone.

MilitantVL:


&#092;"God&#092;" made the 10 commandments, where primitive laws were made, such as killing homosexuals....

Have you looked at the Talmud, which was taught alongside these passages, and puts many more restrictions on them? Or the historical precidents of when they were actually employed? Both are critical to not fuck up the OT.

[synthesis]

Too bad three centuries of Christian pacifism blows that out of the water.

Yup, it took about that long to infiltrate the ruling class, right up until Constantine. Islam, on the other hand, was the dominant religion relatively quickly.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:12 pm
Jesus didnt kill anyone.
Really? I think Jezebel&#39;s children would dispute that claim.


Ohh I guess they had it coming, since their mom was evil. Real nice Jesus, punish children for their mother&#39;s misdeed.

[Dean]

Originally posted by daniyaal+December 11, 2007 12:13 am--> (daniyaal @ December 11, 2007 12:13 am)
Kun Fanâ@December 10, 2007 10:51 pm


My argument still stands that Muhammed killed thousands of people during his &#092;&#092;&#092;"crusade&#092;&#092;&#092;" and Jesus Christ killed zero people.

Jesus never had the chance, they hung him up too quick. Didn&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;t take too long for his disciples to get it started, though.



By &#092;&#092;&#092;"Violence&#092;&#092;&#092;" I mean &#092;&#092;&#092;"killing people&#092;&#092;&#092;".

Yeah, because you&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;re an imperialist troll.
Too bad three centuries of Christian pacifism blows that out of the water. [/b]
Which three centuries? It seems like Christians have been violent since the phrase was coined.


Dean:


not just in the old but also the new testaments, which advocate violence especially against non-believers and &#092;&#39;sinners.&#092;&#39;

None condoning violence. Peter&#092;&#39;s act in the garden is violent as is the crucifixion of Christ and the persecutions in Acts. However, there is never prescriptions for Christians to be violent nor descriptions of Christians being violent after the garden where Peter is rebuked for attacking someone.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man&#39;s foes shall be they of his own household."
-Supposed words of Jesus, as told in the New Testament

Right, Jesus never preached violence.

[graffic]

Yeah, because you&#39;re an imperialist troll.

How exactly am I a troll? This thread is about Islam not Imperialism you assuming ****. I imagine if this thread was entitled - is Christianity or Judaism inheritantly violent you would be arguing the case on the other foot. Double standards anyone?

Why exactly do you feel - as a leftist - the need to defend the Islamic faith so passionately?

[synthesis]

LOL, I was far less sure about calling you an imperialist than I was about calling you a troll. I find it hilarious that you object more to being called a troll than an imperialist, especially given your avatar.

I feel like I can comfortably regard you as a troll after your remark that "Allah is a tribal god." You obviously don&#39;t have a clue what you&#39;re talking about; all you know is that you support Zionist inculpability for atrocity and that you really, really hate Islam.


I imagine if this thread was entitled - is Christianity or Judaism inheritantly violent you would be arguing the case on the other foot.

No, because that would be missing the point. They are all products of conditions; religions can&#39;t be violent until religious people start doing violent things with them, which is usually the product of a religion&#39;s infiltration of a ruling class.

Now we must ask ourselves, what are the conditions in which we live today? And I believe that Islamophobia is just another method of distracting people from class consciousness.



Why exactly do you feel - as a leftist - the need to defend the Islamic faith so passionately?

Because people like you feel the need - as imperialists - to disparage the faith so passionately.

There are many more ways in which Islam is similar to Christianity and Judaism than ways in which it is different.

Right now, placing Islam as the new "bad guy" is showing direct support for Western "intervention&#39; in the region.

[Lynx]

What is wrong about defending Muslims who are peaceful, law abiding citizens?

[graffic]

I feel like I can comfortably regard you as a troll after your remark that "Allah is a tribal god." You obviously don&#39;t have a clue what you&#39;re talking about; all you know is that you support Zionist inculpability for atrocity and that you really, really hate Islam.

Yes I do hate Islam. I hate all religons, I also hate "leftists" like yourself who defend an inheritantly violent faith with no evidence to back their argument up.


Now we must ask ourselves, what are the conditions in which we live today? And I believe that Islamophobia is just another method of distracting people from class consciousness.

Leftists constantly defending Islam and siding with relgious reactionarys is ten times worse than stating facts about a violent religon.



Because people like you feel the need - as imperialists - to disparage the faith so passionately.

I&#39;m not an Imperialist. I oppose the US occupation of Iraq, and I only support the US involvement in Israel because the Jewish state would cease to exist without it. I&#39;m Pro-Israel in the sense that like most people with their heads screwed on I support a realistic two state solution. I don&#39;t blindly follow the reactionary Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas party line. Democracy is vital for social and economic change, supporting reactionary regimes in the name of "anti-Imperialsim" is contradictory in the sense that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are just as bad as the US with their treatment of the poor - on a smaller scale.

The unjustified and bigoted opposition to Israel is led and fronted by the Islamic elements of the Middle East. Thats probably why Islam is more "shit" at this current time, I don&#39;t believe it damages class consciousness in saying this.

And Lynx - theres nothing wrong with defending law abiding Muslims, were talking about the Ideaology here. The faith not the followers.

[synthesis]

The unjustified and bigoted opposition to Israel is led and fronted by the Islamic elements of the Middle East.

Unjustified? Since the 1880&#39;s, Zionists have been advocating "settling" lands that have already been settled.

To Muslim civilians, the need for a Jewish homeland is meaningless when settlers are forcing you off land that your family has owned for hundreds of years.

As to your assertion that Islam is inherently violent, I would heavily advise you to research the history of Jews in the Ottoman Empire. Muslims viewed the idea that Jews were guilty of deicide (a crucial foundation of early Christian traditions) as blasphemy and allowed Jews to maintain powerful positions in Ottoman society.

Most serious historians agree that there was relatively very little in the way of real anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, aside from the contempt that dominant groups routinely have over their subjects, up until the 19th-century.

One Jewish historian argues that Islamic anti-Semitism "is not distinguished by personal animosity towards Jews, nor do publications stress Judaism as an internal threat to the majority population. [It is] basically political, ideological, intellectual, and literary antisemitism that focuses on the external threat which the State of Israel represents for the Arab countries."


Yes I do hate Islam. I hate all religons

Yet you hate Islam more than any other, probably because you are an imperialist.


I also hate "leftists" like yourself who defend an inheritantly violent faith with no evidence to back their argument up.

LOL. You&#39;re one to talk about having no evidence.


I don&#39;t blindly follow the reactionary Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas party line. Democracy is vital for social and economic change, supporting reactionary regimes in the name of "anti-Imperialsim" is contradictory in the sense that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are just as bad as the US with their treatment of the poor - on a smaller scale.

If they are reactionary, then they are reactionary, and should be opposed from a proletarian perspective, instead of the imperialist paradigm, which implies Islam to be a religion that we Westerners should work especially hard to eradicate - which fundamentally necessitates imperialism, especially Zionism.



Leftists constantly defending Islam and siding with relgious reactionarys is ten times worse than stating facts about a violent religon.

Well, this is clearly false; there is no element of violence in the Islamic world which has not been present in the Christian world as well, and very little that cannot be easily reduced to material conditions.

But for the sake of argument, let&#39;s look at some other ways in which Islam is actually different from Christianity.

Who invented the modern scientific method? It wasn&#39;t the Greeks, Romans, or Enlightenment philosophers, but medieval Muslims. They introduced the concepts of quantification, controlled experiments, and peer review. This is basic historical fact.

Guess what? The same dude who created our quantitative, empirical, and experimental scientific method was a devout Muslim who also wrote a treatise on how to distinguish real prophets from false claimants.

Muslims established the first public hospitals and universities. They were the first to draw the distinction between alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy, recognizing only one as fundamentally scientific. Muslims were advocating evolution a thousand years before Darwin:

"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring." - Al-Jahiz (c. 776-869)

For the most part, Muslims were pioneers in the fields of optics, algebra, botany, agricultural science, anthropology, experimental psychology, surgery, geology, demography, historiography, and psychophysics before William the Conqueror ever set foot in Britain.

How come? It can be traced to the need for an indigenous religion to encompass a cultural movement, in addition to its role in the spiritual sphere, as a unifying force in Arabic culture. In this sense it was very different from Christianity.

Christianity contains very few rules about the structure of everyday life, as it is primarily focused on ignoring material distractions in favor of the afterlife. Christianity tells you not to do something a thousand times before it tells you to do something, and only because it distracts you from the "grander truth."

Islam is totally different; it focuses on creating a kingdom of God on Earth. It contains all kinds of injunctions concerning everything from the administration of finance and insurance to hygeine to the number of times per day every Muslim should stop and pray.

That&#39;s part of why Islam and science were inseparable up until the 14th century, and also exactly why Christian societies only began to experience scientific advantages when they began to reject total Christian influence - Christianity has always been an enemy of science.

[daniyaal]

Muslims established the first public hospitals and universities.

Actually, no. The Sinhalese were the first to create dedicated public hospitals (though the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans had temples that served as hospitals too), and the Greeks, Chinese, and Indians (bith Hindu and Buddhist) had universities centuries before Islam itself was invented.


They were the first to draw the distinction between alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy, recognizing only one as fundamentally scientific.

Source? I have never heard this claim before. It is fascinating then that Islamic &#092;"scientists&#092;" continued to practice Alchemy and Astrology right up to the time that Islamic science imploded.


Muslims were advocating evolution a thousand years before Darwin:

&#092;"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring.&#092;" - Al-Jahiz (c. 776-869)

Ignoring that the ancient Greeks were advocating evolutionary ideas long before Al-Jahiz was born, there is one problem with this &#092;"quotation.&#092;" It is not a quotation from Al-Jahiz.

It is a quotation from paleontologist and practicing Muslim Gary Dargan as spoken on a radio program. It is his interpretation of what Al-Jahiz wrote but given your other errors above, it would be wise to suspend judgment until you can provide a direct translation of what Al-Jahiz actually said. I suspect he was not quite so explicitly succinct or Darwinian.


For the most part, Muslims were pioneers in the fields of optics, algebra, botany, agricultural science, anthropology, experimental psychology, surgery, geology, demography, historiography, and psychophysics before William the Conqueror ever set foot in Britain.

For the most part, Muslims were practitioners of these fields having learned them from the people they conquered, most notably the Persians, Indians and Byzantine Greeks. But as &#092;"pioneers&#092;" and innovators, Islam was remarkably sterile.

For example, while they were able to assemble (from borrowed sources) almost the entire corpus of classical optics, they were never able to use that knowledge to invent a single telescope, microscope of pair of spectacles. Those were all later European inventions.


Christian societies only began to experience scientific advantages when they began to reject total Christian influence - Christianity has always been an enemy of science.

Actually, a great number of scientists instrumental in the scientific revolution of the Renaissance were influenced by the Christian John Calvin&#092;&#39;s idea that by studying nature as well as Scripture, a person could grow that much closer to God.

Given the number of Muslim scientists who ended up being condemned as heretics and apostates, Islam appears less than completely congenial to science as well.

[synthesis]

I&#39;m chuckling to myself right now; you&#39;re pretty good at the art of casting doubt on historical fact without ever actually proving any points.


Source? I have never heard this claim before. It is fascinating then that Islamic &#092;"scientists&#092;" continued to practice Alchemy and Astrology right up to the time that Islamic science imploded.

Yes, because Islamic science was not monolithic. I never made such a claim; I only stated that Islamic scientists distinguished the two.

Alchemy: Felix Klein-Frank (2001), "Al-Kindi", in Oliver Leaman & Hossein Nasr, History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 174. London: Routledge.

Astronomy: S. Pines (September 1964). "The Semantic Distinction between the Terms Astronomy and Astrology according to al-Biruni", Isis 55 (3), p. 343-349.


Ignoring that the ancient Greeks were advocating evolutionary ideas long before Al-Jahiz was born, there is one problem with this &#092;"quotation.&#092;" It is not a quotation from Al-Jahiz.

It is a quotation from paleontologist and practicing Muslim Gary Dargan as spoken on a radio program. It is his interpretation of what Al-Jahiz wrote but given your other errors above, it would be wise to suspend judgment until you can provide a direct translation of what Al-Jahiz actually said. I suspect he was not quite so explicitly succinct or Darwinian.

Sure.

http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/al-jahiz.php

Do a Ctrl-F for evolution.


The Sinhalese were the first to create dedicated public hospitals (though the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans had temples that served as hospitals too), and the Greeks, Chinese, and Indians (bith Hindu and Buddhist) had universities centuries before Islam itself was invented.

"The first free public hospital was opened in Baghdad during the Caliphate of Haroon-ar-Rashid. As the system developed, physicians and surgeons were appointed who gave lectures to medical students and issued diplomas to those who were considered qualified to practice. The first hospital in Egypt was opened in 872 AD and thereafter public hospitals sprang up all over the empire from Spain and the Maghrib to Persia." - Sir John Bagot Glubb

I&#39;m willing to concede your point about the universities.



For the most part, Muslims were practitioners of these fields having learned them from the people they conquered, most notably the Persians, Indians and Byzantine Greeks. But as &#092;"pioneers&#092;" and innovators, Islam was remarkably sterile.

This is fun. I&#39;ve never met anyone who was so wrong so often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham



Given the number of Muslim scientists who ended up being condemned as heretics and apostates, Islam appears less than completely congenial to science as well.

More like theocracy as a whole is not congenial to science. If you want to blame Islam for condemning scientists, you&#39;ll have to blame Christianity for the way Galileo was treated.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 14, 2007 12:42 am


For the most part, Muslims were practitioners of these fields having learned them from the people they conquered, most notably the Persians, Indians and Byzantine Greeks. But as &#092;"pioneers&#092;" and innovators, Islam was remarkably sterile.

This is fun. I&#39;ve never met anyone who was so wrong so often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham
This is funny. Let&#39;s do some more - what other conceits about muslims do you have, daniyaal? He might as well replace "muslim" with "arab" and "islam" with "birth," because this is obviously xenophobia, not some reasoned criticism of the religion.

[synthesis]

? He might as well replace "muslim" with "arab" and "islam" with "birth," because this is obviously xenophobia, not some reasoned criticism of the religion.

I totally agree. I think you&#39;ve raised a valid point that this criticism of Islamic history isn&#39;t just anti-Islamic, it&#39;s also pretty racist in that "Muslim" is conflated with "Arab" and therefore the contribution of Persian and Indian Muslims to Islamic science are simply Muslim/Arab theft of indigenous development, as Persian and Indian converts cannot be considered to be "genuine" Muslims.

This parallels various white supremacist historical narratives I&#39;ve read - that figures of civilizations were always white, or if they were not, they were completely based on stolen technology or ideas.

Thus, according to Stormfronters, does Albert Einstein become just another thieving Jew stealing white insight into the nature of physics.

And thus does it become the case that these racists must prove that Arabic civilization never developed anything of importance, or if they did, they were never the first.

[daniyaal]

Yes, because Islamic science was not monolithic. I never made such a claim; I only stated that Islamic scientists distinguished the two.

Alchemy: Felix Klein-Frank (2001), &#092;"Al-Kindi&#092;", in Oliver Leaman & Hossein Nasr, History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 174. London: Routledge.

Astronomy: S. Pines (September 1964). &#092;"The Semantic Distinction between the Terms Astronomy and Astrology according to al-Biruni&#092;", Isis 55 (3), p. 343-349.

A quotation or two would be helpful. After all, a &#092;"semantic distinction&#092;" does not necessarily meen that al-Biruni considered Astronomy science and Astrology not. Certainly, Al-Haytham&#092;&#39;s rejection or Astrology was primarily on theological grounds... not scientific ones.


Sure.

http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/al-jahiz.php

Do a Ctrl-F for evolution.

I read the article. It is fascinating that when Al-Jahiz is not being quoted he sounds very Darwinian, and when he is being quoted he doesn&#092;&#39;t. Is it safe to assume that the author is interpolating?

Look for example at the author&#092;&#39;s attempt to claim a discussion by A-Jahiz reagarding &#092;"the struggle for survival.&#092;"

&#092;"The rat goes out for collecting his food, and it searches and seizes them. It eats some other inferior animals, like small animals and small birds. . . it hides its babies in disguised underground tunnels for protecting them and himself against the attack of the snakes and of the birds. Snakes like eating rats very much. As for the snakes, they defend themselves from the danger of the beavers and hyenas; which are more powerful than themselves. The hyena can frighten the fox, and the latter frightens all the animals which are inferior to it. ...
this is the law that some existences are the food for others. . . . All small animals eat smaller ones; and all big animals cannot eat bigger ones. Men with each other are like animals. . . God makes cause of some bodies life,&#092;"

This entire discussion could be digested as &#092;"Big fish eat little fish.&#092;" It makes no mention of differential survival or reproduction. It makes no mention of inheritance. It makes no mention of selection at all.

It is nothing more than an observation that bigger animals eat smaller ones. What response is more appropriate than, &#092;"Duh?&#092;"

Further, his actual discussions of change are of individuals in a polluted environment. These are aquired characteristics. They are not inherited and have nothing to do with evolution.

I fully admit that the article you posted is intruiging. But all of the truly evolutionary concepts it contains are found in the author&#092;&#39;s interpolation rather than the words of Al-Jahiz himself.

And again... all of them were preceded by the evolutionary speculation of the Greeks by centuries.


&#092;"The first free public hospital was opened in Baghdad during the Caliphate of Haroon-ar-Rashid. As the system developed, physicians and surgeons were appointed who gave lectures to medical students and issued diplomas to those who were considered qualified to practice. The first hospital in Egypt was opened in 872 AD and thereafter public hospitals sprang up all over the empire from Spain and the Maghrib to Persia.&#092;" - Sir John Bagot Glubb

Sir Glubb is off by some 1200 years.

Prof. Arjuna Aluvihare, &#092;"Rohal Kramaya Lovata Dhayadha Kale Sri Lankikayo&#092;" Vidhusara Science Magazine, Nov. 1993.

According to the Mahavamsa, the ancient chronicle of Sinhalese royalty written in the 6th century A.D., King Pandukabhaya (4th century BC) had lying-in-homes and hospitals (Sivikasotthi-Sala) built in various parts of the country. This is the earliest documentary evidence we have of institutions specifically dedicated to the care of the sick anywhere in the world. Mihintale Hospital is perhaps the oldest in the world.


This is fun. I&#092;&#39;ve never met anyone who was so wrong so often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

I&#092;&#39;d love to dismember the wikipedia article in detail, but I&#092;&#39;ll just point out one example of the sort of errors it contains. It says:

&#092;"Among his other achievements, Ibn al-Haytham described the pinhole camera and invented the camera obscura (a precursor to the modern camera),&#092;"

In actuality, the first reference to the Camera Obscura is (to no surprise) found in the works of Aristotle in his work Problemata, about 350 BC. He discusses how the sun makes a circular image when it shines through a square hole, something he first discovered by observing the images of a solar eclipse cast by at his feet by the leaves of a tree (Problemata, Aristotle c.350 BC). He then created the first camera obscura (the one with that square hole) for further experimentation. Some 50 years or so later, Euclid used a camera obscura in his volume Optics for the purposes of demonstrating that rays of light travel in straight lines. (Optica, Euclid c.300 BC) Both of these accounts predate Islam by about a millennium, and are 1300 years prior to Ibn al-Haitham.

Much of what al-Haitham is credited for here is found in the prior work of Greek, Persian and Indian scholars all of whose work was available to him after translation at the &#092;"House of Wisdom&#092;" in Bagdhad. This is the source of most &#092;"Islamic Science.&#092;"

Do you recall when in March of 2006, the British Newspaper The Independent published its top twenty “Islamic Inventions” culled from a traveling museum exhibit of “1001 Islamic Inventions?” It was titled, “How Islamic inventors changed the world.”

Of the 20 &#092;"inventions&#092;" on the list, only 3 of them were actually made by Muslims.... and that number was only reached by being generous. It has become a bit of cottage industry for Muslims to claim they have invented almost everything from surgery to soap. My best accounting is that about 85% of the claims (based on the Independent article) are bogus.



This is funny. Let&#092;&#39;s do some more - what other conceits about muslims do you have, daniyaal? He might as well replace &#092;"muslim&#092;" with &#092;"arab&#092;" and &#092;"islam&#092;" with &#092;"birth,&#092;" because this is obviously xenophobia, not some reasoned criticism of the religion.

Why would I be Xenophobic regarding Arabs? I&#092;&#39;m Sicilian for god&#092;&#39;s sake, with my grandmother hailing from a town that remains almost pure Saracen. I am roughly 25% Arab myself.


This is not a criticism of the religion. It is a criticism of the false claims made by some regarding it.

[synthesis]

You could be right, you could be wrong. This discussion has degenerated into something that reminds me of Stormfront discourse, with hundreds of pages of debate over whether or not black people invented peanut butter, and whether that black person was fully black or just 1/16.

That&#39;s extremely boring to me, and it&#39;s not really productive to the topic at hand. So I&#39;m willing to concede that perhaps the first public hospital was not in Iraq, or maybe that medieval Muslims did not invent the camera, despite the fact that I&#39;ve encountered credible claims to the contrary.

But that&#39;s not the point. The prolific achievements of Islamic science are nowhere near as dubious as you make them out to be. Don&#39;t take my word for it, though, check out some historians&#39; perspectives on the matter.

"The main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages was the creation of the experimental spirit, and this was primarily due to the Muslims down to the 12th century." - George Sarton, considered the father of the history of science

"The only effective link between the old and the new science is afforded by the Arabs. The dark ages come as an utter gap in the scientific history of Europe, and for more than a thousand years there was not a scientific man of note except in Arabia." Sir Oliver Joseph Lodge

And the ultimate goal is to refute these claims that the fundamental character of Islam is violence and hatred. That&#39;s pure cultural chauvinism.




This is not a criticism of the religion. It is a criticism of the false claims made by some regarding it.

You might not be trying to totally devalue Islam, but there is the sense that you promote Christianity as something more "positive" which is not the case, scripturally or historically.

So I agree with you, let&#39;s not trash on Islam, and understand it as the necessary adaptation of previous religious trends into the conditions of pre-Islamic Arabia.