Brill
SOF Support
And the first one was...
http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam
(I would argue that LFM isn't really a Christian group either unlike Los Caballeros Templarios.)
Your witness.
Discuss and Debate: "Islam is a Religion of Peace"
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
And the first one was...
http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam
(I would argue that LFM isn't really a Christian group either unlike Los Caballeros Templarios.)
Your witness.
And the first one was...
http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam
(I would argue that LFM isn't really a Christian group either unlike Los Caballeros Templarios.)
Your witness.
lol
You can't always go with the FIRST Google result, sometimes you have to scroll down a little.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Googled "Charlemagne beheading Saxons" and got this from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars
So, there's an example of Christians cutting peoples' heads off. But again, I don't think it proves or disproves the fundamental question of this discussion.
This has been fun, but I have to get ready to go to bed. I hope that this thread stays on track and doesn't have to be closed overnight. 'night, all.
Brill
SOF Support
lol
You can't always go with the FIRST Google result, sometimes you have to scroll down a little.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Googled "Charlemagne beheading Saxons" and got this from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars
Understand. I thought you were going to cite the Christian on Christian violence that made up WWI and WWII.(Ok, that was me just being a dick).
So, there's an example of Christians cutting peoples' heads off. But again, I don't think it proves or disproves the fundamental question of this discussion.
Actually disagree because who is just as important (and telling) as how (in my opinion).
The Islamic community is still at odds determining which "books", if you will, are canonical. I don't see what headway is going to be made here if the Islamic community itself doesn't even know what Islam is.
I think that point is also the crux of this discussion. Why is it that in Islamic texts, we see some stuff that is overwhelmingly violent, while then we see pieces that would fit in nicely in the New Testament? The point is, we are looking at Islam like it's Christianity. Islam doesn't have, nor has it ever had, the structure Christianity has had. That's why there are so many divisions in Islam, so many "schools" of thought. That's why some Muslims look at OBL as a terrorist and others view him as a religious freedom fighter or whatnot. That's why Muslims don't even agree with whether or not their leader is divinely ordained, or if he's just the leader of the Ummah, Islamic community.That's why some Islamic texts sound like they were made by Sandusky while others sound like they were made by Mother Theresa.
You might as well be arguing over whether or not the color "fucktard" is appealing. It doesn't exist. There's no defined thing we can argue about here, IMO.
I think that point is also the crux of this discussion. Why is it that in Islamic texts, we see some stuff that is overwhelmingly violent, while then we see pieces that would fit in nicely in the New Testament? The point is, we are looking at Islam like it's Christianity. Islam doesn't have, nor has it ever had, the structure Christianity has had. That's why there are so many divisions in Islam, so many "schools" of thought. That's why some Muslims look at OBL as a terrorist and others view him as a religious freedom fighter or whatnot. That's why Muslims don't even agree with whether or not their leader is divinely ordained, or if he's just the leader of the Ummah, Islamic community.That's why some Islamic texts sound like they were made by Sandusky while others sound like they were made by Mother Theresa.
You might as well be arguing over whether or not the color "fucktard" is appealing. It doesn't exist. There's no defined thing we can argue about here, IMO.
Brill
SOF Support
I totally stole this from PS.com but found it EXTREMELY relevant.
http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384
http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384
OBL's fatwas were so off the wall that they were panned by those whom are actually authorized to issue fatwas. The 2 biggest Islamic Universities denounced them immediately & said they had no legitimacy- I can't remember the universities off the top of my head though. Only Islamic scholars can issue them, so he had no ground to. Clerics in Spain actually issued their own fatwa against OBL in '05: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150066,00.html
Unfortunately, like you said, the interpretation of Islam had led to a lot of intolerance. This intolerance came later in Islamic history however, due to various reasons I will get into later.
Something else I've noticed a lot of people bring up is the recent history of Islam as perfect evidence for them being anything but peaceful. I don't have the time to get into this in detail tonight, but just food for thought for when I pick it back up tomorrow:
A lot of this starts in the mid-1700s. I'll take some highlight's from Karen Armstrong's book "Islam:"
- People need to understand that the West "came into themselves" at their own pace, over the course of 300 years. Those 4 centuries were marked with a lot of "barbarism" & bloodshed. They had their fair share of revolutions, genocides, religious wars, etc. Countries north of the Alps were bass-ackward for centuries until they slowly began clinging to Greco-Roman culture. Western Europe was behind Byzantium. European countries did not "catch up" to each other until roughly the 13th century. By the 16th century, a rough sense of cohesion was present enough to allow for the "arrival" of the West.
- The Arab world wasn't as lucky. They had a good run in the 6th & 7th centuries, but it stagnated when they closed the doors of ijtihad (creative thinking). They never got the hegemony the West did. Plus, they were still an agrarian society. They simply could not catch up to the explosion of progress the West was experiencing. They have been playing catch up ever since.
- Europe & American had an economy based on technology & capital, Arabs did not.
- The West's philosophical, political, & economic advances were completely foreign to Arabs. In order to keep the economy going, more people needed to purchase goods. The West's literacy rates skyrocketed, which led to the people wanting a bigger say in government. In order to efficiently utilize human resources, marginalized groups became part of the mainstream society (i.e. the Jews). Because such a high priority was put on efficiency, religious difference suddenly weren't as big of a deal as they use to be. This is a huge reason why democracy became so prevalent: it's what made sense economically.
- To play catchup, the Arab world had to essentially try to force their people into this way of thinking. As previously said, the West did not have that problem. They came to this realization at their own pace, over hundreds of years.
- Because of the rapid explosion in growth, homeland saturation occurred, so new markets were needed, & surrounding agrarian societies fit the bill. The West began colonizing so they could "pull" the agrarian society into their circle.
- raw materials were provided for export into the European industry, via the colonized area. The colonized country then got cheap Western goods, which ruined the local industry. Only the higher echelons of society in the colonized areas received any Western education, while the lower classes bottomed out because they did not have the education or the perspective to justify what was happening to them.
So it can be understood why these countries took offense to the intrusion. A people who saw religion & politics as one were suddenyl being told from outsiders that that's not how to do it. "Your way of life is dumb. Here, let us show you how to do it the right way. & oh yeah, watch the rich get richer & your poor family get poorer. See the nice modern towns we just built? Ya, you can't afford them, but you can keep your ratty old village, which is now saturated with the poor & the criminals." Compare it to modern day farmers: I know a great many who feel disenfranchised by modernization. Their hard work doesn't mean as much, they are on the outskirts of society, when they use to be the engine of it. The Arab world did not have the opportunity to be innovative. They had to follow the West or fall out, & even by following they will never catch up.
There's more on this, but I'll pick it up tomorrow. I'm heading to bed shortly. Looking forward to tomorrow's debate!
A lot of this starts in the mid-1700s. I'll take some highlight's from Karen Armstrong's book "Islam:"
- People need to understand that the West "came into themselves" at their own pace, over the course of 300 years. Those 4 centuries were marked with a lot of "barbarism" & bloodshed. They had their fair share of revolutions, genocides, religious wars, etc. Countries north of the Alps were bass-ackward for centuries until they slowly began clinging to Greco-Roman culture. Western Europe was behind Byzantium. European countries did not "catch up" to each other until roughly the 13th century. By the 16th century, a rough sense of cohesion was present enough to allow for the "arrival" of the West.
- The Arab world wasn't as lucky. They had a good run in the 6th & 7th centuries, but it stagnated when they closed the doors of ijtihad (creative thinking). They never got the hegemony the West did. Plus, they were still an agrarian society. They simply could not catch up to the explosion of progress the West was experiencing. They have been playing catch up ever since.
- Europe & American had an economy based on technology & capital, Arabs did not.
- The West's philosophical, political, & economic advances were completely foreign to Arabs. In order to keep the economy going, more people needed to purchase goods. The West's literacy rates skyrocketed, which led to the people wanting a bigger say in government. In order to efficiently utilize human resources, marginalized groups became part of the mainstream society (i.e. the Jews). Because such a high priority was put on efficiency, religious difference suddenly weren't as big of a deal as they use to be. This is a huge reason why democracy became so prevalent: it's what made sense economically.
- To play catchup, the Arab world had to essentially try to force their people into this way of thinking. As previously said, the West did not have that problem. They came to this realization at their own pace, over hundreds of years.
- Because of the rapid explosion in growth, homeland saturation occurred, so new markets were needed, & surrounding agrarian societies fit the bill. The West began colonizing so they could "pull" the agrarian society into their circle.
- raw materials were provided for export into the European industry, via the colonized area. The colonized country then got cheap Western goods, which ruined the local industry. Only the higher echelons of society in the colonized areas received any Western education, while the lower classes bottomed out because they did not have the education or the perspective to justify what was happening to them.
So it can be understood why these countries took offense to the intrusion. A people who saw religion & politics as one were suddenyl being told from outsiders that that's not how to do it. "Your way of life is dumb. Here, let us show you how to do it the right way. & oh yeah, watch the rich get richer & your poor family get poorer. See the nice modern towns we just built? Ya, you can't afford them, but you can keep your ratty old village, which is now saturated with the poor & the criminals." Compare it to modern day farmers: I know a great many who feel disenfranchised by modernization. Their hard work doesn't mean as much, they are on the outskirts of society, when they use to be the engine of it. The Arab world did not have the opportunity to be innovative. They had to follow the West or fall out, & even by following they will never catch up.
There's more on this, but I'll pick it up tomorrow. I'm heading to bed shortly. Looking forward to tomorrow's debate!
Damn didn't see this thread up till now and it's bed time for me. Will try and contribute to it a bit tomorrow, assuming I have some spare time in the evening.
Fuck me it IPhone sucks at the cut and paste shit. Mara please tidy if you will. With the above I had a wry smile to myself as a minority can be acused of hijacking a religion so too did Paul hijack another.
There's some icky stuff in Leveticus but were wise enough to have taken it today with a grain of salt. The islamists still ( or some of them) still want to live the old way.
With regard to OBL he didn't have the stature to issue fatwas and this point has since been clarified by Islamic scolars through the
Amman Declaration.
SURAH V:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is ( one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
There is too the Sword verses SURAH IX 1-8. the only ones in the koran which do not begin with " in the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful." It makes interesting reading.
There's some icky stuff in Leveticus but were wise enough to have taken it today with a grain of salt. The islamists still ( or some of them) still want to live the old way.
With regard to OBL he didn't have the stature to issue fatwas and this point has since been clarified by Islamic scolars through the
Amman Declaration.
SURAH V:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is ( one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
There is too the Sword verses SURAH IX 1-8. the only ones in the koran which do not begin with " in the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful." It makes interesting reading.
Thanks for posting that. Honestly I'm hesitant to oppose a man far smarter than I, but I will try. Again, if anyone refutes me you have my thanks for enlightening me.
I just want to point out that while he gives a list of battles to illustrate his point, the earliest date he gives is 732 & the Battle of Tours. I'll use his first example to illustrate my point:
First, this is about a hundred years after Muhammad, during the Umayyad Dynasty. It should be noted there was a lot of turmoil within Islam at this time. The Umayyad caliphate was loathed by many inside it. The Shia look at them as thugs that corrupted Islam & massacred Ali's descendants. Sunnis felt similarly, calling them "irreligious." Only full-blood Arabs were allowed seats of power. Half-Arabs were turned into bastards at best, & non-Arab converts were treated with far more disdain than under previous caliphates. non-Muslims, whom had previously been allowed to worship according to their faith, were placed in an inferior category & had to pay a tax in order to worship. As a result, they eventually decided to convert to save $, which led to a huge drop in tax revenue. This unrest translated into lots of civil war. The Shia literally removed themselves from the political arena during this time because they felt it had been so corrupted that it could not be redeemed. They didn't reenter the political arena until very recently.
When Abd al-Malik took the thrown, he established the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. This was a big changing point for Islam, & the idea that God had ordained Islam to bring about a new world order came to be. This was al-Malik's way of saying that while Islam was connected to Christianity & Judaism, it now superseded them.
Like I said, all this did not garnish a lot of support. Bernard Lewis, in his book "The Middle East," goes as far to say
"there was a growing feeling, frequently expressed in literature, that the march of Islamic history had taken a wrong turn, & that the leaders of the community were leading it to sin... In Islam, as ideally conceived, there were to be no priests, no Church, no kings and no nobles, no privileged orders or castes, save only for the self-evident superiority of those who accept the true faith to those who willfully reject it... The caliphate's purpose was to serve Islam. Instead of serving Islam, they served the interests of small groups of rich & powerful men, who operated by methods that... resembled those of the ancient empires Islam had overthrown."
So we see that this period was far from a general consensus. That is why when Martel defeated Muslim troops in 732, "this was not regarded by Muslims as a great disaster. Western people have often exaggerated it's importance, which was no Waterloo. The Arabs felt no compulsion- religious or otherwise, to conquer Christendom in the name of Islam. Indeed, Europe seemed remarkably unattractive to them: there were few opportunities for trade in that primitive backwater, little booty to be had, and the climate was terrible" (Armstrong, 50).
I won't, nor can I, argue that Islam has always walked the straight & narrow. In fact, things begun to fall apart one way or the other right after Muhammad died. His hope for the Arab world did not live up to expectations. He say Islam as the one true God bringing his word to the Arab people, as he had done for the Jews and the Christians. Muhammad called them "the people of the book." He believed his message was for Arabs. His views on a just society align in a lot of ways (but not all) with how the early Christians ran things in the book of Acts- a community completely devoted to each other, where there is no class & where everyone is united in worship. This vision, much like early Christianity, did not last long. Reality soon trumped idealism (I say this as a Christian). As Islam began to spread across the Arab world, it became clear that this quasi-socialist setup was not working. Add that to the fact that the Quran does not really say much in the way of legislation & governing, nor did Muhammad give instructions on how things should be run when he dies- and you have a bunch of people completely baffled at how to maintain the momentum they had just attained.
Given the above argument at #34, Aesops Fables have nothing to tell us about correct behavior? The Prophet owes much to the Christian & Jewish traditions due in part to his adoption of Jewish words used in the Koran and the stories of the Old Testament which occur throughout the work. Why is this so? Desert Arabs had no tradition to speak of, but I digress.
I do get the point about historical context but I'd bet my bottom dollar there's many a Muslim that doesn't.
Muslims I'm sure, approach the Koran with a reverent mindset, maybe even moreso because he doesn't understand the background so well.
I do get the point about historical context but I'd bet my bottom dollar there's many a Muslim that doesn't.
Muslims I'm sure, approach the Koran with a reverent mindset, maybe even moreso because he doesn't understand the background so well.
I agree completely. Muhammad most certainly borrowed heavily from Jewish & Christian faith. He actually came to the idea of being one of God's people by talking with Jews about Jacob & Ishmael. That's when he said, we are Ishmail's descendants, and God's people.
& there is an abysmal amount of Muslims that do not understand the historical context. I in no way advocate or defend that. These days, blind obedience is inexcusable with the amount of information that is at our fingertips. Unfortunately, lack of context appears to be a problem in all cultures, it is just more obvious in the Muslim world because the extremes of that ignorance have bombs strapped to them. Excellent points you brought up.
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=293&pubtype=-1
I've just finished this PDF. It's pretty insightful regarding motivation of jihadis and IMO there seems to be no clear cut path to the dark side.
I've just finished this PDF. It's pretty insightful regarding motivation of jihadis and IMO there seems to be no clear cut path to the dark side.
Yep; that's why (as I mentioned in the other thread) it's always so hard to have a conversation on this topic. People keep conflating issues and want to do a comparative analysis instead of a critical one, and to use Christianity to justify the excesses of Islam. But at least we haven't degraded into name-calling. Yet.
Okay, to tie in my premise that we are war with Islam and that Islam is not a religion of peace.
Fundamentally, Islam has not evolved or changed. It began through violence, was maintained with violence, and that pattern continues to this day. There was even a split after Muhammad's death and that split continues to enjoy untold amounts of violence to this day. The religion has no issues with solving internal disputes with violence, so why should an external issue be any different? Islam's growth has always coincided with violence and is only stopped through violence, political discussions or concessions have no room in this area as far as Islamic leaders are concerned.
In the last 50 years, the West has seen an increase in violence from Islamic groups using the teachings of Islam as their justification for those actions. One could argue that it is simply politics with a religious shell...but look at how these groups present their argument for violence to their followers. It always comes back to a religious justification.
Go to a Muslim country, even one as progressive as the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is Vegas in the desert. You want it, you can have it....if you'll do it behind closed doors. Even the UAE has jailed people for having sex outside of marriage...Westerners. Public display of affection on the wrong beach? Don't collect $200. The UAE will gladly take your money Infidel, so long as you do it within their selected enclaves. Go to other countries and it worse. You'll even see hostility towards fellow Muslims who don't happen to be from the host country.
But not all Muslims are violent: True, but I submit that most either actively support extreme groups or allow the support to go on without reporting this behavior to the proper authorities. If you stripped away religion and made them part of an outlaw motorcycle club or gang you could probably make a good case for RICO charges against certain Muslim organizations in the US alone. This organized support structure, which exists in many countries, prospers in part because it is supported passively or actively by it's followers. It is a decentralized worldwide network that is allowed to hide behind religion and no one wants to make this a religious war, right?
Why we are at war with Islam: The West doesn't want to admit it. It cloaks it's arguments with "democracy" and "freedom" and while that may well be the goal of the West (one I have no issues with), the "OPFOR" see it in a different light. As before, politics clothed in religion or not, it doesn't matter. Our opponents use religion as the justification for their actions. The West has been very adamant that this isn't about religion and indeed Western governments don't seek to convert the Followers of the Prophet, but if we took religion out of the equation do you think we'd still cling to the democracy angle? I don't think so because we could brand this (fill in the blank) organization as our enemy and then hunt them down the world over, but the West sees itself as tolerant towards other people and vigorously side-steps the religious aspects of the war.
So there's my contribution on half a cup of coffee.
Fundamentally, Islam has not evolved or changed. It began through violence, was maintained with violence, and that pattern continues to this day. There was even a split after Muhammad's death and that split continues to enjoy untold amounts of violence to this day. The religion has no issues with solving internal disputes with violence, so why should an external issue be any different? Islam's growth has always coincided with violence and is only stopped through violence, political discussions or concessions have no room in this area as far as Islamic leaders are concerned.
In the last 50 years, the West has seen an increase in violence from Islamic groups using the teachings of Islam as their justification for those actions. One could argue that it is simply politics with a religious shell...but look at how these groups present their argument for violence to their followers. It always comes back to a religious justification.
Go to a Muslim country, even one as progressive as the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is Vegas in the desert. You want it, you can have it....if you'll do it behind closed doors. Even the UAE has jailed people for having sex outside of marriage...Westerners. Public display of affection on the wrong beach? Don't collect $200. The UAE will gladly take your money Infidel, so long as you do it within their selected enclaves. Go to other countries and it worse. You'll even see hostility towards fellow Muslims who don't happen to be from the host country.
But not all Muslims are violent: True, but I submit that most either actively support extreme groups or allow the support to go on without reporting this behavior to the proper authorities. If you stripped away religion and made them part of an outlaw motorcycle club or gang you could probably make a good case for RICO charges against certain Muslim organizations in the US alone. This organized support structure, which exists in many countries, prospers in part because it is supported passively or actively by it's followers. It is a decentralized worldwide network that is allowed to hide behind religion and no one wants to make this a religious war, right?
Why we are at war with Islam: The West doesn't want to admit it. It cloaks it's arguments with "democracy" and "freedom" and while that may well be the goal of the West (one I have no issues with), the "OPFOR" see it in a different light. As before, politics clothed in religion or not, it doesn't matter. Our opponents use religion as the justification for their actions. The West has been very adamant that this isn't about religion and indeed Western governments don't seek to convert the Followers of the Prophet, but if we took religion out of the equation do you think we'd still cling to the democracy angle? I don't think so because we could brand this (fill in the blank) organization as our enemy and then hunt them down the world over, but the West sees itself as tolerant towards other people and vigorously side-steps the religious aspects of the war.
So there's my contribution on half a cup of coffee.
Brill
SOF Support
See below.
Mara, don't look now but Free just called you "Batman" (Adam West). ;)
