Sept 11-

[Brother None]

Reaserch the Nuba and Mali and the Jannisaries and the Mamalukes, the Arab mideval cycle of violence that kept the Christians down until they gave up thier culture, thier faith and thier children. before you claim to know more of Islam. Go to St. Sophia before you claim to know the "true" nature of Islam, and claim that Christians destroyed more culters than the Arabs.

You keep revolving around the point here. The claim that Christianity destroyed less cultures than the muslims did is ludicrous and hard to prove, because it depends on perspective. Was colonialism a Christian movement? Was fascism?

St. Peter did not conquer one of the greatest empires in history. Christ did not slaughter Jews. Christ did not rule over an Empire. Christ did not fornicate with a Pagan slave.

Look at Christians now and Christian 500 years ago. You're acting as if somehow when a religion is violent, it has to be inherently violent ipso facto

Dude, don't jump back on old points, think and read first, please.

PS: yes, the inherent violence goes for inherent peacefulness as well.

Actually, Jewish Law specifically states that "All people of the book (it was meant to include Zoastrianisim), if they belive and acto on thier faith they are not infldels".

I have NO idea how this is relevant to anything.

Italian IS ROMAN. Arabic is NOT SYRIAC. It was NOT a NATURAL progression. You speak DUTCH, not LATIN, or ARAMAHIC, or HEBREW. YOU SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR ANCESTORS.

Well, not really, I speak a language formed by 2000+ years of invasions, occupations, our own colonialism etc. etc.

What, you think Dutch developed naturally? Right, all the French occupations had no influence on it. Nor had the Roman empire, I s'pose?

My point is that Christianity did not adopt militarisim until.......TADA! 400 years of contact with Islam.

You're referring to the 400 year difference between the Persian invasion and the first crusade? You know that's not clean, just because that Christianity's first big war on the islam, doesn't make it their first form of militarism.

Though documentation on this is hazy, mostly 'cause it's written by the victor, I wouldn't think it'd be an unfair claim to say early Christians were like a rebel faction within the Roman empire...You think that was peaceful?

Ever thought that the Crusade sounds a *bit* like a Christian Jihad? THAT IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS! The NT does not state that "A day on campaign is better then a month of fast and prayer". In one, ONE OUT OF SEVERAL accounts of Jesus does it say that faith determis who goes up and who goes down- the rest of it is basically Zoastrianisim mixed with Neo-Platonisim and contemporary liberal Judaisim.

This doesn't make sense. First you claim Christianity shares something with the islam in the form of the war-jihads (which isn't the only interpetation of "jihad", dammit), which is fair, then you spin around in saying Jesus preached peace as opposed to the Qu'uran. At least try to make sense, dude.

You seem to have a lot of data backing this up. Instead of just spin-doctoring, how about you lay out all this data nice and clean and then explain exactly how the islam is INHERENTLY more violent than Christianity, because that's what you're arguing, right?

PS: you seem to be dodging a lot of points. Are you going to adress the whole "people generally had it better under the old muslim empire than under the Christian empires of that time" point?

 

[John Uskglass]

They did not, Khran.
Sorry, I get worked up, and anger sometimes blinds my fingers.
Monothletisim, which is what the Egyptians belived in, the Syriac Churches adn the Manichieans where almost gone by the time the Muslims arose. They where still the majority in several areas, but understand that the Byzantine Empire of 640 was not the Byzantine Empire of Justinian. 60% depopulation had occured with the plauge, and Byzantium had just finished what was effectively a World War with the Zoastrians. OF course some people where not doing so hot. But the huge theological debates on which so much blood had been spent was over. The best way to describe the atmosphere was somewhat post-apocolyptic. God made Jesus, Jesus was God, Jesus was/wasnt God, no one cared.
Then the Muslims came in, and taxed Christians until they gave up thier religion and thier language. You have to understand how bad these taxes where, Khran. There was an instance where a Berber Rabbi in Cordoba literally attempted to bribe the Austrias ruler nearby to liberate them. There are records on how the Christians lived from the Patriarchs of Alexandria- no one had any money, then they claimed that Jesus was a Prophet, and BANG they where out of bankruptcy.
Also, the majority (if not all) of medival anti-semetic sentiment is from France and England during this period, and those areas where uderpopulated hicktowns. In the Holy Roman Empire, Jews payed a small protection fee, which really was for protection, so they could live in the HRE. They could pray, they could do almost whatever they wanted. In fact, the Jewish population in most parts of Germany tripled during the Crusades, as Jews, knowing the Germans where fair to them, decided to move to Germany. Byzantium was quite similar as well.
While on the other hand, the Muslim Berbers where terryifig everyone, such that many Muslims faught with El Cid against the Berbers. They killed everyone in thier path.
My favorite example of the nature of Islam is best quoted from Gibbon
"Advance" cried Abdallah (a man who is considerd a Martyr), who stepped into the vacant place, "advance with confidence, either victory or paradise is our own!" This guy is one of the Muslim 12 Apostles.
My major point was that, while Christanity adapts to it's surrounding enviorment, like in Africa, but Islam destroys all in it's path. It was not a mistake that Coptic was consumed by Arabic, while the evolution of Dutch was at least somewhat natural. Dutch still is Dutch, while Coptic is not Arabic.

 

[Ozrat]

Christanity adapts to it's surrounding enviorment, like in Africa, but Islam destroys all in it's path

I believe this one line sums up all that you're trying to say.

Excuse me, but how racist/fundamental/fanatic/biased/just-plain-ignorant can you prove yourself be? And I suppose that even though I was born and raised an American, I am now a terrorist bastard because I moved away to Canada, am friends with an Iraqi girl and I generally don't support Dubya Bush in anything he does?

 

[welsh]

Ozrat, I think you are getting a bit off point. The position Constipated is making seems to be merely that Islam is more violent than Christianity. WHile his position may sound extreme (and may be extreme) I think there's a good reason for thinking about it carefully.

Honestly, I am not yet buying it as Constipated has pointed out lots of anecdotal evidence pointing out those cases were Islam has been used as an ideology of repression, invasion or violence. The counterpoint, that Christianity has done the same thing, has also been offerred.

There is a strong reason for sticking with this point however. There is a lot of talk about the Clash of Civilizations, and among Christians that Islam is inherently threatening. Sometimes it seems that this is a new way of defining "the other" against which we define ourselves. In a similar way as the Cold War was Capitalist/ Democracy vs. Communist/ Dictatorship, we see similar battle lines forming.

Like you, I have friends who are Muslims and who I believe are peaceful and decent people.

The notion of spreading faith through crusade or through conversion of unbelievers is something we can find in both faiths. That the Muslims swept through much of the Mediterranean world, deep into Africa and across the South Asia to the Philippines was a remarkable history of conquest. Just as the Spanish conquests of the new world which was inspired, in part, by a desire to spread Christianity.

We can see similar battles taking place around the world where people divide over religion and use it for political purposes. Even in early Christianity. Early Christians, with their faith in one God and Jesus as savior, were a threat to the Roman emperor who were semi-divine. When the Romans switched over to endorse Christianity as the religion, the Christians, long repressed, began to repress the pagans.

I wound argue that while this probably looks like a conflict over values and ideas, at the heart is a conflict over power, primiarily economic power. Therefore this is yet another cautionary note of why religion and politics should be kept seperate.

 

[Sander]

I'd just like to say, Constinpated(Damit, man, it's even misspelled, why, why do I ask you, did you choose this name???), that you have been either avoiding things or going around the issue. YOu say things like "This is said in the Qu'Ran" while something which basically says the same thing can be foundin the Bible, which you happily ignore.
Then you claim "Well, THIS form of Christianity didn't do anything." But you forget to mention that all of the other forms did.

Onto some points:
Yes, the muslims raised taxes, but that is a HELL of a lot better than what Christianity did to Muslims. I know that Christianity has had a history of killing Muslims(Specifically in Crusades) who aren't Christian(Or who actually ARE Christian, but just don't like the way the Catholic church handled things.), instead of just taxing Muslims.

Languages: Oh, yes, we speak Dutch. However, a long time back, we used to speak Germanic(And write Runic, which was replaced with the Roman Alphabet), and then the Romans came, changing our language to "Dutch"(Basically, it was a longer porcess). Have you thought about how almost any language in the current world can be accounted for by repression, rule over others and things like that? Pointing out that a language is non-existant anymore, or maybe has a different name, is absolutely sily, because that IS the way languages evolve. Do you have any idea how many llanguages have died? That isn't just because of certain religions, and that certainly isn't limited to that one event.

One last point I'd like to make is that you seem to be basing you conclusions on either sporadic events, OR on certain groups within the Islam. YOu have to keep in mind that ONE group within a religion doesn't make the religion itself bad. It makes that one group bad. It'd be like assuming every Christian government supports polygamy, just because the mormons USED to.

 

[Loxley]

When the first crusade reached jerusalem they killed all innhabitants, when the muslims liberated it after 90 years none was killed.

Now what does this tell me of the two religions?

Islam united the arabs and the other cultures that they destroyed in a way that was never thought possibole, they became a power only because of islam. They were united, by islam then laiter by other bonds.

NOw why would osama need any backing by CIA he was a millionare when he was born, he is smart with money. The cia maybe trained allot of the people that laiter joined al-quaida, but Osama would never need the backing of cia.

The christians destroyed the viking culture.

Now to the thought of why christianity started with millitarism. Maybe they suddenly needed that, because they, in their previous years never had met enemys that kicked back, or did not care weather they banned them. When you say "campaing" are you talking about Jihad, and if that is so. What kind of jihad are you speaking Crappy, the small or the large jihad?

 

[John Uskglass]

Sander, do you know why Tunis is called Tunis and not Carthage, and why Baghdad is called Baghdad and not Ctespihon? Why Damascus became capital of the early Caliphs?
Read about those sackings. Then tell me that Islam is a religion of peace, yet in it's thirtieth year it was laying waste to everything it found.

You also did not adress my point on the belief that people under Muslim rule had it better under the Muslims being false.

Yeah, it had everything to do with that event. Dutch, dispite being alterd, still has roots in the languges the people of that area spoke 2,000, or possibly more, years ago. Arabic does not. Arabic is as foriegn to Syria and most of Iraq as Turkish is to Croatia.

The Old Testement has "parts" where violence is used. The Talmud rather clearly states that among the Monotheistic religions are to be tolerated. Half the Koran is dedicated to talking about campaigns against the Inflidel, something Christ did not touch outside of the Gnostic Gospels. I dare you to find in the New Testement something along the lines of "Paradice is in the shadow of Swords", or that bit about the ant's nip and the heathen's sword. I have looked for a few years, and have I found anything?

Ozrat, of course I have a Nazi flag in my room. Of course I vote Republican. Of course I hate Muslims. Everybody with two best friends whi are Ba'hai and Muslim are like that, everybody who speaks some Turkish and has gone there twice is like that. Hell, who am I kidding? EVERY AMERICAN IS LIKE THAT!

Welsh, you sound like the teacher of Arabic Studies at the University of Chicago. While I would like to somehow see things back to the way they wher 1400 years ago, I realize it is close to impossible. That is why I support certain Leftist Muslim groups, particularly a Turkish group that basically has erased all ties with Sunni Islam. Instead, I think that Christians deserve the same rights as Muslims do in the Mid East, that what happenend in Lebanon was wrong on the part of the Palestinians, and that Sunni Islam has alot in common with Communisim, and should be moderated by any means.

 

[Ozrat]

thirtieth

Thirteenth? Thirtiest? Man, that's more confusing than "eleventeenth!"

Ozrat, of course I have a Nazi flag in my room. Of course I vote Republican. Of course I hate Muslims.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what here because it doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph.

Cities changing their names is not a valid point here. Places and people change along with the cultures that come and go.

Read about those sackings. Then tell me that Islam is a religion of peace

Because this is just like trying to prove that Christianity is a religion of peace.

Welsh, you sound like the teacher of Arabic Studies at the University of Chicago

Maybe because he IS a professor? Because he's had a few more years of hardcore education than you? Because he's probably been paying attention to the media on both sides about world affairs longer than 9/11?

 

[welsh]

Welsh, you sound like the teacher of Arabic Studies at the University of Chicago. While I would like to somehow see things back to the way they wher 1400 years ago, I realize it is close to impossible. That is why I support certain Leftist Muslim groups, particularly a Turkish group that basically has erased all ties with Sunni Islam. Instead, I think that Christians deserve the same rights as Muslims do in the Mid East, that what happenend in Lebanon was wrong on the part of the Palestinians, and that Sunni Islam has alot in common with Communisim, and should be moderated by any means.

Jeesh! That's very kind of you to say. Actually I am fairly weak on the middle east but have friends in my U's department that do middle east politics.

And actually I would agree, the Christians should be treated with the same level of rights as Muslims, just as Muslims deserve the same rights as Christians. One's rights as citizens should not be determined by one's faith.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment!

 

[John Uskglass]

No, not that, just that you look at things fairly, you admit to not knowing things and remain civil. Impressive for a FO fan.

Ozratz, you misunderstood my point. They did not "change thier name". The cities where so violently destroyed that no one could live there, so they made cities next to it. The primary reason Antioch, Aleppo, Beirut and Damascus survived is because they just let the Arabs in, or thier names where reverted during the Byzantine Apogge (Appoge?).
And, unlike Christanity, this was 20 years into thier history.
Christanity was not used as an excuse for anykind of war until the Crusades which was after 400 years of Muslim influnce and advancing on Christian soil
They raped the women and girls, killed the men and took the boys to work as slave warriors. At least the Crusaders never resorted to that, while for the Muslims it was the very foundation of society! Do you know why the Egyptians soon after where called "Mamalukes"?
Not only that, but after the sacking of Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, County of Eddesa and several other Christian Kingdoms in the area became very, very tolerant. The local rulers where joked to be "one porkskin away from fallowing Mohamateian scripture". While at the same time Saladin, for his rather chivalrous ways, was talking of "invading the land of the Franks, so that I might free the world from men who do not belive in Allah". That, if anything, proves my point more then anything else- the gentle, intellegent, well-mannerd man who follows Norse Paganisim with a twist.

 

[welsh]

I would hesitate before saying that the Christians didn't use religion as a war-making ideology before the Crusades. For example early Christians often sought out and repressed other faiths that they felt had strayed from the "proper path". For example, one finds the Catholic repression against the Cathari and other reinterpretations of Christianity.

St. Augustine also gets credit for giving us the foundations of modern "Just War" theory. For the Romans, war could be fought under specific legalist reasons, but for Augustine, war became necesseary against barbarians who threatened christian communities. In this sense he took the Christian ideal of 'turning the other cheek" and turned into one in which, under certain conditions, war was morally justified.

Oh, and no, I am just a lowly grad student who has trouble spelling.

 

[Loxley]

They raped the women and girls, killed the men and took the boys to work as slave warriors. At least the Crusaders never resorted to that,

Yes they did. Slaves were common in both sweden and norway during the time of the crusades, several hundred of years since the countries had been christened. There were undertaken minor crusades in our countries. they were mainly targeted against less "developed" cultures that were not christian, and there were taken many slaves. They just were not called slaves.

As i said it before, when the first crusade reached jerusalem they killed all the inhabitans there. Men, women and children.

Ever heard of what happened when lionheart conquered his first city in the middle east? He recived the first half of his bounty, and then he killed all the prisoners that he had taken, 2200 people Men, Women and Children.

This is not just single happenings, Allready in 1030 Norway was christened by the sword, a saint Olav (who was by the way a rapist and a oath breaker) lead an army against the local army and there was several thousand of people that were killed. He was killed and made a saint.

 

[Sander]

Again, Constipated, you're just taking seperate events and pasting them together to make them sound like something is true. You take the streaks of violence, and then make it sound like all their was WAS violence.
The fact that Saladin was talking about invading the countries, doesn't mean he was going to kill everyone, perhaps he wanted to convert everyone, for instance.
And an added thing, is that you are always talking about events, initiated by man. I am not going to believe that the Islam is inherently violent, because MEN interpreted something in the Qu'Ran and took it upon them to fight violent wars in the name of Allah. You could say a lot of similar things about almost every other religion as well, if you take things that way. I've heard of enough instances where people(Serial-killers, war-mongerers and whatnot), said they were doing things because of God(Christian or not). That doesn't make the religion violent, that makes the MEN violent.

I never said that the Islam was a religion of peace, I never said that Christianity was a religion of war either, but both of those religions have both been peaceful and war-waging in the past.

Perhaps you fail to see WHY languages constantly change, lanbguages constantly change because of outside influences(And the shortening of words, faster speech etc.). Outside influences are common everywhere, so are repression, war and other nasty things.
In case you didn't know, English wasn't the original language spoken in the USA either. Nor was English spoken in Australia originally. Every history of every country and religion(Except for MAYBE Buddhism) has a violent past somewhere. Turn the other cheek has been seldomly practiced in Christian religion in the past. The catholics, for instance, even waged war over who was the pope at times. In the same way, the Islam isn't free from guilt of violence, and the Islam has had it's share of violence in the past. But it is no more violent or war-mongering than, for instance, Christianity.

It seems to me that you have taken a stance, and then sought rational arguments for that stance. While it should be the other way around.

PS: What does Norse Paganism have to do with this??

 

[Brother None]

In case you didn't know, English wasn't the original language spoken in the USA either. Nor was English spoken in Australia originally. Every history of every country and religion(Except for MAYBE Buddhism) has a violent past somewhere.

Sander makes an excellent point here, and the only real relevant point I could see in the tail of this thread.

The Brits slaughtered the Indians in the name of "her Majesty the Queen and the Lord" in the same way as the muslims spread their religion in the name of "Allah and the prophet Muhammed".

Would you, constipated, state that the spread of the muslim religion in the first two centuries after it was made was "worse" (for the people to whom the religion was spread) than the world-wide colonialism of the Christian Europeans?

Seriously, constipated, you keep firing anecdotes upon anecdotes upon us, but you fail to reach what it boils down to; is Christianity more or less violent than the islam? This is the only real important point. Of course, no sane man would argue a muslim or Christian is inherently violent because of his religion and that's not the matter of debate, the matter is which one had a more violent history. In my opinion, it's impossible to state for certain which one did, but it would be at least unfair to point the finger at the islam.

It seems to me that you have taken a stance, and then sought rational arguments for that stance. While it should be the other way around.

Hear hear. Of course, this is always true of most opinions, so it's rather a mute point.

PS: What does Norse Paganism have to do with this??

It was eradicated by Christians. Violently. This is sad.

Everybody with two best friends whi are Ba'hai and Muslim are like that

Please don't say that. About 90% of the devout racists/religion-haters in the world ALWAYS claim to have "a few good friends" of the type of peopel they discriminate, just remember that.

PS: constipated, could you PLEASE start using quotes and PLEASE organise your arguments rationally, I'm having serious trouble making heads or tails of some of the stuff you're talking about.

 

[Loxley]

Just pointing out that christianity was agressive before the crusades, and that it has crushed very many other cultures to expand.

Wich crappy by the way seem to forget all along.

 

[John Uskglass]

Sorry Khran, became addicted to quickpost.

Just pointing out that christianity was agressive before the crusades, and that it has crushed very many other cultures to expand.

The one incedent I could think of before Islam, when Christanity had already been around for 500 years, was trying to unify all Christanis against the invading Sassanians. The Sassanians started the war, and the Christians fell back on "defend christendom!". Before that, Christanity had always just melted into a culture. Look at Nubia, a great example- mostly Christanized by the time of Justinian, and very few cultural elements where gone. Look at the Greeks- it is impossible to not compare the Alexiad to Heroditus, Hagia Sophia to the Oracle, or some of the theological arguments to Pagan Academics.
People forget that- the nature of classical discourcie did not die wth Justinian, it just changed forms. Read Baudolino for a more indepth look at that, althouh it has a tendancy to make fun of some of the more particular theological arguments.
So, in 300 years of history as the offical religion of the Roman Empire, the major "tradgedies" of the era where
A) The Closing of the Academy
B)Some Pagan sculpture going untended
However, if anything Pagan science was better kept by the Monastaries than in the hands of some Pagan Academians, the birth of Byzantine Scince saw so many inventions (some of the first uses of steam, Greek Fire), that one could almost compare it to Greece during the Peloponisian wars.
While with Islam you have quite a few things happening in the first three hundred years, most of which I have already pointed out.

But enough with anecdotes.

From "Sad"

"Sad. I swear by the renowned Koran that the unbelievers shall come to grief through thier own arrogance and internal strife.
How many generations have We destroyed before them! They all cried out for mercy, when it was to late to escape!"

From "The Confedorate Tribes"

"Wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you fear Allah, do not be too cmplaisant in your speech, lest the lecherous hearted should lust after you. Show discretion in what you say. Stay in your homes and do not display your finery as women used to in the days of ignorance."

From "Women"

"If any of your women (that translation is odd, typically it says "children of Allah", the word has changed meaning), call in four witnesses from among yourselves against them to thier house till death overtakes them or till Allah finds another way for them"

"The unbelivers are your sworn enemies."

From "The Table"

"Belivers, do not seek the friendship of those infidels and followers of the Scripturs who have made your religion a jest and a past time. Have fear of Allah, if you are true belivers. When you call them to pray, they treat thier prayers as a jest and a pastime. They do this because they are devoid of understanding."

 

[Sander]

I'm assuming those are from the Qu'Ran(Koran, whatever), constipated?

If so, in theory, I could just show you things that mean the same thing from the Bible. I won't, though, because I'm not interested in going through the bible to find silly parts of it that indicate that violence is used.

Just in case those are not from the Qu'Ran: Again, the people write it, using religion as an excuse. This does NOT make the Islam inherently violent.

As for there being no violence before the Islam vs. Christianity in Christianity. I'd say that is absolutely unreliable, due to the simple rule "The victor makes history."

 

[Brother None]

Oh, blast, constipated, you didn't reply to my post again! I hate that! I REPEAT:

Would you, constipated, state that the spread of the muslim religion in the first two centuries after it was made was "worse" (for the people to whom the religion was spread) than the world-wide colonialism of the Christian Europeans?

Seriously, constipated, you keep firing anecdotes upon anecdotes upon us, but you fail to reach what it boils down to; is Christianity more or less violent than the islam? This is the only real important point. Of course, no sane man would argue a muslim or Christian is inherently violent because of his religion and that's not the matter of debate, the matter is which one had a more violent history. In my opinion, it's impossible to state for certain which one did, but it would be at least unfair to point the finger at the islam.

PS: An no, pointing out parts of the Qu'uran that preach violence doesn't bloody well count.

PPS: stop misspelling my name

 

[John Uskglass]

Well, yeah. I do not think you can compare the two. "Europeans", in a few situations annihalated civilizations, but these are comparitivly small, simple civilizations, and the conversions where never complete.
Look at Nubia for an example of what happened with Islam- a 4,000 year old civilization annihalated within a century, replaced with MORE Arabs. Or Egypt, or Syria, or the Persians. We are not talking Dahoney, or Asante, we are talking civilizations that coined the term.

PS: Stop calling it "the Islam". In Enlgish it is just "Islam", or "Muslim" in certain situations, not "the Islam".

PPS: Sorry. You might have guessed I am not very good at spellig.

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm assuming those are from the Qu'Ran(Koran, whatever), constipated?

Yes, they are. And the Sharai and some of the unofficial Mohammed quotes are worse (Rushdie's fatawa was declared on the words "May anyone who insults me die"), because there is no Koranic passage about an infidel poking fun at him

If so, in theory, I could just show you things that mean the same thing from the Bible

No, not really. There is some wacked out stuff in the Old Testement, but Talmud evens that out for the Jews, and the New Testement, at it's worst, says that faith decides stuff- and that is from one wacked out apostle and one version of what happened. The rest really emphasize good deads.