Muslims

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I would say, Thank God good came of the Black Death.

Yes, that I'd agree with .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That, I wouldn't. Good, my arse.

[Lief Erikson]

Don't you approve of democracy? If not, why not? Or are you just being silly- I can't tell .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It depends on what you mean by "approve". I don't think it's inherently bad, but I think it's a system of government which is inferior to monarchy.

[Nurvingiel]

Well it is true that a monarchy, if well run, is more efficient than democracy. However, if you don't get a belevolent and competant monarch, it's a terrible system. At least you can replace an incompetant Prime Minister.


And, Islam is cool.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You can replace a bad monarch, too. Tyrannicide is perfectly acceptable.

But you speak as though Prime Minister:democracy::monarch:monarchy. This isn't the case. The people (demos):democracy::monarch:monarchy. And if you have a bad democracy in place, changing the government can be extremely bloody.

Most religions are, in varying degrees.

[Lief Erikson]

Gwaimir, I'm going to respond to you in the "Political Philosophy" thread about this, because I'm interested in hearing some of your thoughts about democracy and monarchy.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Because of the Islamic heritage and the Muslim culture.

The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) was not a muslim state. In fact, it was know for it's tolerance for religious diversity. But it was a monarchy. Radical Muslim states are a much less common, and recent, development. And they are largely a reaction to generations of absolute monarchy that the West has encouraged. Read your history.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

World War 2 was very recent. European Christian countries changed to become more democratic, but the Islamic countries have not.

I suggest you read this book, for some insights into why the middle east did not become democratic post-ww2, and how much the West contributed to that outcome.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Christian nations have a longer history of existing than the Muslim ones do . But even in spite of that, in England it is simply not the case.

And christians have a long history of killing in the name of god. It is no different. Many christian nations have just been allowed to move further along the path of development than the christian ones. The problem is not religion, at least directly, since all religions bring about social problems to a degree. It is about the political history of a given nation.

Every democracy in the West has a period (or more) of death and bloodshed associated with the transition to democracy. You must look at entire histories, not just the parts you like.

[Spock]

"The Black Death" is a drink in Iceland which can make you wish you were dead.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) was not a muslim state. In fact, it was know for it's tolerance for religious diversity. But it was a monarchy. Radical Muslim states are a much less common, and recent, development. And they are largely a reaction to generations of absolute monarchy that the West has encouraged. Read your history.



I suggest you read this book, for some insights into why the middle east did not become democratic post-ww2, and how much the West contributed to that outcome.



And christians have a long history of killing in the name of god. It is no different. Many christian nations have just been allowed to move further along the path of development than the christian ones. The problem is not religion, at least directly, since all religions bring about social problems to a degree. It is about the political history of a given nation.

Every democracy in the West has a period (or more) of death and bloodshed associated with the transition to democracy. You must look at entire histories, not just the parts you like.

Brownjenkinss is the bomb! So great to read your posts, brownjenkins, every time. Just had to say it -

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) was not a muslim state. In fact, it was know for it's tolerance for religious diversity. But it was a monarchy.

The Ottoman Empire was a Muslim state whose official leaders was a Muslim sultan, and the empire was also a monstrous invading force. It was controlled and dominated by Muslims. It invaded and conquered large numbers of nations that did it no offense.

I'll want to look more closely at the religious diversity they're supposed to have allowed. People under the original Islamic nations did have greater religious tolerance than under their Sassanid and Byzantine leaders, but it was still far from what we'd call real religious tolerance. It was only comparative tolerance. So I'll have to look closely at the Ottoman Empire's stance on religion before I believe it was really tolerant. But it can be said for it that it was an improvement for many people .

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

It was, however, the non-Turkish Muslim communities who prospered the most under the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman law did not recognize such notions as ethnicity or citizenship, but instead divided its population according to the rubric of religion; thus, a Muslim of any ethnic background enjoyed precisely the same rights and privileges as a Muslim of Turkish ethnicity. On the other hand, a Christian of Turkish ethnicity had only the restricted political rights of other Christians. Under such conditions, many Muslim Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa came to view the Ottoman state as a revived Islamic empire along the lines of the earlier Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates, and were willing to fight and fall for it.

I'd really want to look at this more closely and see what these more restricted political and (probably) economic rights and restrictions were. Though I have little doubt they were comparatively better to how religious minorities were treated in many European countries, and that is important.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Radical Muslim states are a much less common, and recent, development.

Major Muslim powers have been invading countries for power reasons alone since Mohammed. Islamic extremism in its current form is relatively recent, but a cursory look at history will show a large number of other Islamic conquests that were supported by the jihad writings in the Koran.

Current Muslim extremists are only following the example of Mohammed. Mohammed took hostages, raided caravans and pulverized helpless Jewish communities in order to weaken his enemies, and then invaded many other tribes which did no offense to him after he destroyed the tribe (the Qur'ayshe) which did persecute him. Muslims have followed Muhammad's example for centuries. Radical Islam is not new. It comes from the founder of the religion, and examples of it continue through the centuries.

The Ottoman invasions are one more example of this. Us Christians initiated the Crusades, but that was for the specific purpose of taking the Holy Land, a flawed Christian perspective, but nonetheless at least limited to the Holy Land. This is radically different from Muslim nations of history which have sought to conquer the world.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And they are largely a reaction to generations of absolute monarchy that the West has encouraged. Read your history.

If you're talking about post-WW2, you're making a big mistake in saying this is "generations". It's only slightly over fifty years. There is a long history of authoritarian government in these Muslim countries, whether the West encouraged that in the last fifty years or no.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And christians have a long history of killing in the name of god. It is no different.

On the contrary. We sought to invade the Holy Land for God. The Muslims sought to invade the world, and a significant and growing number still do. There is a major difference there.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Many christian nations have just been allowed to move further along the path of development than the christian ones.

Some freedom is too much. If you mean some non-Christian countries are more liberal than some Christian ones, and thus introduce more liberal of laws, I agree that this is true but don't think it's a good thing.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem is not religion, at least directly, since all religions bring about social problems to a degree. It is about the political history of a given nation.

The history is important, but the importance of the religion must not be understated either. Christians have fought wars for purely religious reasons before, and so have Muslims and so do Muslims. But Christians have not sought to conquer all the world through violence, and the Muslims have tried that and many Muslims still do try it, because of religion or at the very least strongly supported by what the religious doctrines say.

[Spock]

Well said Lief. At least I no longer feel " as one lost in the wilderness"....

[Lief Erikson]

I came to this perspective of Islam entirely through personal research and study. I strongly encourage reading some history textbooks on Mohammed and his immediate successors- it can be very enlightening. The same pattern of violent conquest you'll observe there continues down the centuries since Mohammed, as well.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Major Muslim powers have been invading countries for power reasons alone since Mohammed. Islamic extremism in its current form is relatively recent, but a cursory look at history will show a large number of other Islamic conquests that were supported by the jihad writings in the Koran.

Major Christian powers have been invading countries for power reasons alone since Christ. Christian evangelism in its current form is relatively recent, but a cursory look at history will show a large number of other Christian conquests that were supported by the Bible.

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Major Christian powers have been invading countries for power reasons alone since Christ. Christian evangelism in its current form is relatively recent, but a cursory look at history will show a large number of other Christian conquests that were supported by the Bible.

far worse than that..... read the Old Testament.... God directly ordered the genocide of serveral peoples

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But Christians have not sought to conquer all the world through violence, and the Muslims have tried that and many Muslims still do try it

I think if you took a poll of 100 random muslims around the world you would find very very few who wanted to conquer the world and slaughter the non muslims. I think thats a great misrepresentation of Islamic people.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
But Christians have not sought to conquer all the world through violence, and the Muslims have tried that and many Muslims still do try it

as Gaffer and Oz said, there is a long history of violence in the evangelizing history of Christianity... I just wanted to bring up the atrocities committed by the Conquistadores as an example.... tell the Aztecs that Christians were not looking to conquer them through violence.... after all, their land was annexed to Christendom with a papal blessing....

however, painting all Christians with the same brush is as silly as claiming the majority of Muslims are violent :shrug:

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Major Christian powers have been invading countries for power reasons alone since Christ.

Not since Christ . The Christian kingdoms came in centuries following the Roman Empire, which didn't disintegrate instantly.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Christian evangelism in its current form is relatively recent,

No, it dates to Jesus Christ. The early Christians evangelized in the same way. Many missionaries have gone through the world since then through the centuries in the tradition of Christ, spreading the Gospel peacefully. St. Patrick evangelized Ireland peacefully around 430 AD. Eventually Irish missionaries began to come back to Europe, to spread the Gospel amongst Europeans peacefully too, because Europe's Christian roots were weakening. Christianity was brought to Japan peacefully in the 16th century. Christianity was spread peacefully by many of the missionaries who accompanied the European powers in their dividing up of nations amongst themselves in the 19th century. Well before that, different orders of Christians often attempted to peacefully present the Gospel message to natives of various islands and the Americas. Christianity also was sometimes spread primarily by the sword, but unlike conversion by the sword, peaceful evangelism has always been a part of Christianity.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

but a cursory look at history will show a large number of other Christian conquests that were supported by the Bible.

We're responsible for nothing comparable with the Muslim invasions in scale or objectives. Always our objectives were more limited. When we saw something in the world that we thought was evil, we went against it. There's no parallel in Christianity for the modern Islamist view that all the world outside of Islam must be violently conquered.

Honestly, it's just ridiculous how people all point to the Crusades and talk about how horrible the Christians were, but nobody mentions the early Islamic invasions, a hundred times the Crusades in scale and impact, launched right after Islam's birth with the goal of not just conquering the Holy Land, but it AND all the rest of the world! It's just crazy.

Instead they talk about how Muslims are all peaceful except a handful of extremists. The hypocrisy is mindblowing.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think if you took a poll of 100 random muslims around the world you would find very very few who wanted to conquer the world and slaughter the non muslims. I think thats a great misrepresentation of Islamic people.

I know there are many liberal Muslims in the world and there are many good teachings in Islam. I'm not denying either of those facts. Much of the liberalism spread in Islam after their power disintegrated and they were divided amongst European powers, because attacking was simply no longer a possibility. But violence in Islam is reviving again. People who say the correct interpretation of Islam is a peaceful life are badly deluded.

Originally Posted by Oz!

far worse than that..... read the Old Testament.... God directly ordered the genocide of serveral peoples

I know of no instances of Christians committing genocides, though we do believe those genocides the Jews committed in ancient history were commanded by God. If you knew a bit more about the nations they destroyed, you might get a better idea why. The genocides were a judgment from God of their evil conduct.

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

however, painting all Christians with the same brush is as silly as claiming the majority of Muslims are violent :shrug:

I'm not claiming that the majority of Muslims are violent.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not claiming that the majority of Muslims are violent.

Just that violence among Muslims is on the rise?

If that is so I would say it's more cultural than religious.

Again with that culture-religion intertwinedness that we were talking about.

Also, Islam means "submission to God" not "blow stuff up" so people who believe Islam is a peaceful religion are not the slightest bit deluded.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I came to this perspective of Islam entirely through personal research and study. I strongly encourage reading some history textbooks on Mohammed and his immediate successors- it can be very enlightening. The same pattern of violent conquest you'll observe there continues down the centuries since Mohammed, as well.

Proof that people only see what they want to see. Here's a topic for study: "Christianity and Nazi Germany".