Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
April 23, 2024, 06:50 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 12:02 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
April 19, 2024, 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
April 19, 2024, 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM

New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The guardian sent me here

 (Read 10449 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #30 - October 30, 2015, 07:52 PM

    Unlucky? How? They had access to greek philosophy and all the knowledge that helped western world to achieve its advanced civilisation, way before the western world.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #31 - October 30, 2015, 11:20 PM

    Quote
    Unlucky? How? They had access to greek philosophy and all the knowledge that helped western world to achieve its advanced civilisation, way before the western world.


    You do realize the advancement in 'science and knowledge' by the West only dates back approx 200 years?
    Please read the full article below:

    Quote
    The industrial revolution occurred in the 19th Century. The 20th Century is considered by many historians, to be the most bloody in history, due to both World Wars and the Cold War, between the Soviet Union and the US. huge leaps made in science and technology by the West can be understood when we examine the influence of Capitalism. When the colonialists left the Muslim World, they did not leave the inhabitants of those countries to govern themselves; instead, they installed rulers who would continue to support the financial and political institutions of the West and who would be subservient to Western governments...

    http://www.khilafah.com/why-has-the-muslim-world-made-no-contribution-to-science-and-technology/


    Furthermore, Muslims have been "unlucky" because they were not as organized and as brutal as Western colonizers.

    Quote
    The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order



    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #32 - October 30, 2015, 11:49 PM

    It's the brutal West fault as always.   Roll Eyes
    Same old,  same old...
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #33 - October 30, 2015, 11:55 PM

    "You do realize the advancement in 'science and knowledge' by the West only dates back approx 200 years? "

    So I guess Newton wasn't worth a damn along with Galileo, Copernicus, and Da Vinci?

    I read your article. It really was quite silly. Being devoted to a singular ideology does not guarantee success. And the West certainly hasn't been devoted to a singular ideology like capitalism, as evidenced by many socialist, communist, and fascist movements that are bound to spring up in society that guarantees the freedom to express ideas and dissent as long as one does not infringe on the rights of others. The constant insistent that Islam is a perfect ideology is, of course to many here, an absurdly dubious claim. One can insist all they want that no Muslim majority country with laws derived from the religion is not a "real" Islamic country, but it simply is the "no true scotsman" fallacy, and it seems to just be employed as an excuse to not own up to serious injustices perpetuated by these Islamic regimes.

    Then there was this golden nugget:
    "The progress made in Medicine, was due to the Muslims following the commands of Allah as laid out in the Quran and Sunnah. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, in his famous hadith:

    “There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its treatment.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

    Of course in the same collection of hadiths, the prophet is on record saying:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

     The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." (Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537)

    The prophet sure is the king of medical advice. Clearly the lack of progress by Muslims in the medical field is due to them not taking their scriptures to heart.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #34 - October 30, 2015, 11:55 PM

    Quote
    It's the brutal West fault as always.   Roll Eyes
    Same old,  same old...


    If you've cared to notice, the claim was made by Samuel P. Huntington in the book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order"

    What is he? I will make it easy. Just pick one number from below.

    (1) A self-hater
    (2) A Muslim lover
    (3) An anti-Semite
    (4) Holocaust denier
    (5) Jew hater
    (6) Closet Muslim

     Cheesy

    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #35 - October 31, 2015, 12:01 AM

    Please read the full article below:

    You know, posting articles from HT websites approvingly is good cause for side-eye round these parts. Especially when they read too much like cod-historical apologia with a healthy dose of 'the Ummah has been doing Islam wrong, let us tell you why'.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #36 - October 31, 2015, 12:12 AM

    You do realize the advancement in 'science and knowledge' by the West only dates back approx 200 years?


    That's simply not true.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #37 - October 31, 2015, 12:36 AM

    Hi justperusing,

    Quote
    So I guess Newton wasn't worth a damn along with Galileo, Copernicus, and Da Vinci?


    Of course it all counts, I was obviously talking about modern advancement in science and technology. Their knowledge was dormant for a long period of time in terms of using it to bring the world into what we now know as "Western civilization" and "Western culture".

    Quote
    I read your article. It really was quite silly. Being devoted to a singular ideology does not guarantee success. And the West certainly hasn't been devoted to a singular ideology like capitalism, as evidenced by many socialist, communist, and fascist movements that are bound to spring up in society that guarantees the freedom to express ideas and dissent as long as one does not infringe on the rights of others. The constant insistent that Islam is a perfect ideology is, of course to many here, an absurdly dubious claim. One can insist all they want that no Muslim majority country with laws derived from the religion is not a "real" Islamic country, but it simply is the "no true scotsman" fallacy, and it seems to just be employed as an excuse to not own up to serious injustices perpetuated by these Islamic regimes.


    I do agree the article wasn't the best. However. I agree with the gist of the point the author was trying to make. All those Islamic quotes and verses should be used for inspirational purposes and encouragement not be taken literally. I'm surprised that you believe Western colonialism had zero impact on the progress of the Islamic world. People who blame the Islamic religion cannot answer why other non-Islamic countries and people have had similar problems. If you examine the history of India, China and many African countries, you will find that they've also struggled to progress at the same rate as Western countries. Those countries did not have Islam as the main religion so how could that be?

    Here is an example of how Islamic teaching had influenced progress:

    "Paradise Found Islamic Architecture And Arts" -- BBC documentary

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T30P2ygmIU

    Please watch it. I will catch up later on the other points.




    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #38 - October 31, 2015, 12:44 AM

    Quote
    That's simply not true.


    I should have said "advancement in modern science and technology" That is what I meant.

    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #39 - October 31, 2015, 01:04 AM

    "Of course it all counts, I was obviously talking about modern advancement in science and technology. Their knowledge was dormant for a long period of time in terms of using it to bring the world into what we now know as "Western civilization" and "Western culture"."

    I'm not really seeing the distinction here. The invention (or discovery) of calculus was a huge step in the direction of modern science and technology by Newton. Key thinkers such as Voltaire, John Locke, Rousseau, and Rene Descartes laid the very foundations of the ideas that Western culture and civilization is built upon and all of them lived more than 200 years ago.

    "I'm surprised that you believe Western colonialism had zero impact on the progress of the Islamic world."

    I fail to see where I ever said anything close to that.

    "People who blame the Islamic religion cannot answer why other non-Islamic countries and people have had similar problems. If you examine the history of India, China and many African countries, you will find that they've also struggled to progress at the same rate as Western countries. Those countries did not have Islam as the main religion so how could that be?"

    I do not believe Islam is the only reason why the Islamic countries have stagnated in terms of technological and scientific development. I don't even believe it is the main reason. But I think it is a contributing factor (at least some interpretations of it). To think that Islam is perfect is an article of faith. I, however, do not see eye to eye with you on this and in fact believe certain aspects of Islamic scriptures and tradition have impeded progress (perhaps I'm interpreting them wrong, but Muslims can't seem to agree on this themselves). This is not something unique to Islam though. Hinduism, Christianity, and certain Eastern religions have had a similar impact in slowing progress. But certainly European imperialism as well as Zionism have played a huge role in creating the mess in the Middle East we see today.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #40 - October 31, 2015, 01:21 AM

    This is worth a watch. The islamic golden age is mentioned at 27:10. It makes a very interesting point about the influencer of imam Hamid al-Ghazali.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

    Thoughts?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #41 - October 31, 2015, 01:24 AM

    Systematic discrimination is all in the mind. It is only done by a minority of extremist Muslim leaders and their hired followers, but in quite a lot of ex-colonial Middle Eastern countries. Those "Islamic countries" are usually ruled by despots, military dictators or authoritarian regimes. Most of them are 'allies' or puppets of the West and are more interested in personal wealth and luxury life than their people. These so called rules have been know to drink alcohol, take drugs, gamble and commit adultery. You can't get more unIslamic than that.


    You just literally answered nothing. You didn't answer anything about political rights, can a Christian or Atheist be a president? Can Adhan, the noise pollution be stopped?

    Minority of extremist Muslim leaders? Did you miss the part when I said the clerics did nothing to help us?

    Quote
    "Islamic countries" are usually ruled by despots, military dictators or authoritarian regimes


    This is false, Indonesia and Malaysia are rules by secular democracy. Indonesia had dictator who imprisoned many islamists, and after that dictator fell we have muslim rulers getting more rabid day by day.

    There are Clerics here, Sheikhs and imams who do have some control of what they say. They don't help us reach equality. Most Islamic countries are not ruled by dictators, except maybe ISIS Palestine or Syria. Majority of muslims don't live in middle east or dictatorship. If you think that everyone is being mind-controlled by government, then point out which clerics you approve and I will ask if he will campaign for our rights.

    Quote
    These so called rules have been know to drink alcohol, take drugs, gamble and commit adultery. You can't get more unIslamic than that.


    Really? You are going to have to prove that my rulers, or even majority of rulers did these. Are you only talking about Saudi princes or something?

    Hint: They don't. The clerics definitely don't.

    Another Hint: We have had a campaign to stop smoking and banning alcohol from supermarket for a while. Porn is also blocked. Gambling is a crime, drugs possession = death penalty. As far as I know, this is the norm in most muslim countries.

    Quote
    There is nothing in Islam to support this and Islamic history can also refute this claim. Just think, if Muslims hated Jews and Christians for example, then why does the Middle East still have millions of Jews and Christian...?


    Red herring. This does not answer the systemic discrimination that I said.

    Their numbers dwindled, and conversion to Islam is really normal especially if you are being treated as second-class as non-muslims. Christianity aren't allowed to evangelize, or any religion in particular. You're not allowed to leave Islam under Caliphate either, so it's really one-way conversion.

    Islamic Caliphate have always had unfair laws like this. Inheritance laws and divorce laws I mentioned? You think it didn't exist in Caliphate? Caliphate favors muslim, in fact caliphate pretty much makes sure only muslims can rule.

    Quote
    well, until the creation of Israel and Western wars in the Middle East that is. This has now caused an exodus and persecution of Christians and Jews. Logically speaking, it's not Islam that is responsible for the current situation but the war-torn environment.


    Red herring again. I never said anything about persecution in war-torn countries. Most Islamic countries are NOT war-torn. My country is not in war with anyone. We are peaceful and quite rich now.

    You see, you can probably fool nevermuslims by throwing this "reasoning" around, but you can't really do this with people who have actual experience living in muslim country. Despite of what you think, our country, as many Islamic countries are, we are actually being shaped by mainstream Orthodox Islam now. You can't weasel out of discussing this just by throwing "dictators" here and there.

    Quote
    During peaceful periods in the region everyone coexisted.


    This is the biggest red herring. Coexistence back then still mean muslims always have the upper hand. "Coexistence" doesn't guarantee equal rights.

    Quote
    (1) A Christian world under Islam's rule
    Christopher Howse is surprised to discover that for 400 years, a half of the world's professing Christians lived under Muslim rule: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/5173660/A-Christian-world-under-Islams-rule.html


    You can't keep pointing out ancient rules to show Islam is good, it shows just how low your standards are. You know human rights back then were lacking.

    We already know that now secular democracy will give us equal rights, as opposed to "second-class and inferior, but alive" rights under muslim rule.

    Quote
    (2) Once upon a time, a widely circulated Jewish document described Islam as "an act of God's Mercy". Also, Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies. No, these aren't fairy tales or propaganda. The relationship between Muslims and Jews really was that cooperative and marked by peaceful coexistence.


    False equivalence. At that time, muslims might be the most tolerant ones but right now, the most tolerant countries that grants them equality are secular western countries. You realize that Jews now would have much more rights under secular government right?

    TLDR; Red herring. Red herring after red herring that answered none of my questions. You dodged everything by saying war, and war was the reason muslims are like this. False. I was not asking for ancient coexistence, because if I had such a low standard then I would be satisfied just being alive. I was asking for equal rights.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #42 - October 31, 2015, 01:31 AM

    Quote
    When the colonialists left the Muslim World, they did not leave the inhabitants of those countries to govern themselves; instead, they installed rulers who would continue to support the financial and political institutions of the West and who would be subservient to Western governments


    This is only true for middle east, and it definitely doesn't apply to Iran.

    Quote
    People who blame the Islamic religion cannot answer why other non-Islamic countries and people have had similar problems. If you examine the history of India, China and many African countries, you will find that they've also struggled to progress at the same rate as Western countries. Those countries did not have Islam as the main religion so how could that be?


    China is progressing just fine, same with SKorea and Japan. Also Singapore.

    Many countries have many problems, a mix of religious, political, and cultural problems. However, I will admit to all 3 while you'll only admit 2 : political and cultural problems. You refuse to believe religious beliefs can stagnant growth as well.

    I mentioned all the religious problems which you didn't answer, you keep on dodging and said it's all political. You're going to run out of excuses soon enough.


    Quote
    Furthermore, Muslims have been "unlucky" because they were not as organized and as brutal as Western colonizers.

    Quote
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order



    This is such a laughable attempt of whitewashing history. At that point in history, nobody had the technology that the west had, and that is why they won wars. Part of the reason why the west was able to colonize, was because the colonized were too weak themselves. They lost out on technology and progress. If they were strong, just like how Islamic Caliphate had always been, they would have attacked back and colonized Europe in retaliation. Caliphate and their "defensive" wars.

    The whole Islamic law is there to keep muslims in power. Inheritance? non-muslims get nothing. Divorce? Children go to muslim. In fact, every single discrimination I mentioned was there because it helps muslims gain more power, or become more religious.

    Islam itself is a systemic discrimination towards non-muslims.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #43 - October 31, 2015, 11:55 AM

    how many countries are responsible for a racist occupation with the unconditional support of the world's biggest superpower?

    I have some sympathy for this. but without the support of the world's biggest superpower (and some scary bombs) the Jews would all be massacred.

    Every one of them, I fear.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #44 - October 31, 2015, 12:10 PM

    The 'clash of civilizations' as some would say.

    With your peerless grasp of history you will of course be aware that it wasn't always thus.

    For millennia the Mediterranean was the Great Sea (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-Sea-History-Mediterranean/dp/0141977167). There was no clash of civilizations. That came later, with unfortunate cultural and religious divergence.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #45 - October 31, 2015, 01:32 PM

    You do realize the advancement in 'science and knowledge' by the West only dates back approx 200 years?


    If you want to caricature the West as industrialization sure. Good thing it is a caricature only.

    Quote
    Furthermore, Muslims have been "unlucky" because they were not as organized and as brutal as Western colonizers.


    That is not luck. That is the break down of systems within Muslims nation caused by a number of reason just as any recession is. Beside many of the colonization efforts were not as organized as you think. In India it was not due to the organization of Britain but it's ability to use the organized systems already present. It was able to turn many of India's states into vassals due to political and military factors by playing on conflicts already present. India was conquered by Indians not the British. This is different from Spanish colonization which replaced the existing systems with it's own. Yet Spain played on the same factors using the current situation on the ground to it's advantage. In the end this is no different than the rise of the Ottoman Empire which took advantage of the current situation in Eastern Europe and Asia Minor. The Ottomans turned a number of kingdoms into vassals in Eastern Europe which is the same as Britain using what was already present. Was Eastern Europe unlucky or was it's systems in a period of collapse and recession? Should I blame the centuries of warfare by Islamic nations on Byzantium causes it's collapse or should I include factors within the Byzantium Empire itself. I think you are looking at colonization of the New World which replaced existing systems and people with it's own. This is not the case with many Old World colonization efforts. Algeria is not America.

    Read your own article. Not once did it pass it off as luck as you have done. Also the Abbasid Caliph was not the same post 10th century as it was a puppet for the Seljuk Turks. Puppets do not get credit for anything as they are puppets. Beside you articles makes claims far beyond those of any proper analysis as no one would put forward that Islam is the correct, this is religious rhetoric nothing more, when said system was failing long before capitalism.  In the end the religious-ethic centrism undermines your points since it is unable to handle the factor that Muslims nations problems are not solely the product of external influences. You create a bubble around Islam which disappears when progress is being made but comes back as soon as there is a lack or reversal of progress.

    Christians argue the same point about progress as inspired by their religion. Islam is not unique. Beside inspiration does not mean the religion gets credit. The religion provided no work itself, no methods, no knowledge only inspiration just as Christianity did. Christians wanted to understand the world/reality God created. Never mind that at times discoveries directly contradicted religious traditions and beliefs. Hence the Catholic Church took decades to accept evolution. There is a similar process of acceptance of ideas within Islam. Both have taken scientific knowledge using it to reinterpret their religion beyond what the scientific knowledge presents, IE theistic evolution. Not once does evolution suggest a guiding hand but the religion does.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #46 - October 31, 2015, 01:46 PM

    From CiF to a world of pain.

    This thread is a car crash.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #47 - October 31, 2015, 02:08 PM

    Systematic discrimination is all in the mind. It is only done by a minority of extremist Muslim leaders and their hired followers, but in quite a lot of ex-colonial Middle Eastern countries. Those "Islamic countries" are usually ruled by despots, military dictators or authoritarian regimes. Most of them are 'allies' or puppets of the West and are more interested in personal wealth and luxury life than their people. These so called rules have been know to drink alcohol, take drugs, gamble and commit adultery. You can't get more unIslamic than that.


    Go look up the Abbasid Dynasty. It was not very Islamic given the revolts, rebellions, coup, murder, dynastic disputes and out right usurping of the Caliph. The very think you praise has the same issues unislamic issues you see now. The only difference is you know about the modern issues due to mass media but not about the historical issues.

    Quote
    There is nothing in Islam to support this and Islamic history can also refute this claim. Just think, if Muslims hated Jews and Christians for example, then why does the Middle East still have millions of Jews and Christian...? well, until the creation of Israel and Western wars in the Middle East that is. This has now caused an exodus and persecution of Christians and Jews. Logically speaking, it's not Islam that is responsible for the current situation but the war-torn environment. During peaceful periods in the region everyone coexisted.


    False. Go look up the Ottoman boy harvest for the Janissaries. Go look up Maimonide's biography in which Jews were forced to convert or be exiled. They were forced to wear badges identifying them as Jews before this policy of conversation or exile. There are positives and negative examples. To hold that there are only positive is a religious-centrism position no better than euro-centrism. It is a belief that X is superior based on selection bias. 

    Books can be written to support this by I will provide two examples:

    Quote
    (1) A Christian world under Islam's rule
    Christopher Howse is surprised to discover that for 400 years, a half of the world's professing Christians lived under Muslim rule: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/5173660/A-Christian-world-under-Islams-rule.html


    You didn't read your own article otherwise you would of never put forward the Islamic Golden age:

    In place of knowledge a series of myths has grown. One is of a cultural golden age in Islamic Spain, with Muslims, Christians and Jews living in harmony. Yet Americo Castro, who coined the word convivencia to describe the life of the three faiths in the caliphate of Cordoba, wrote, in his book The Structure of Spanish History: "Each of the three peoples of the peninsula saw itself forced to live for eight centuries together with the other two at the same time as it passionately desired their extermination."

    Or

    "To be sure, philosophy and religious discussion flourished for a time in Baghdad under the Abbasid caliphate, established in ad 750. How this struck more hardline Muslims is shown in an account by a visitor from Spain, Abu Umar Ahamad ibn Muhammad ibn Sadi. "I witnessed a meeting which included every kind of of group: Sunni Muslims and heretics, and all kinds of infidels: Majus, materialists, atheists, Jews and Christians. Each group had a leader who would speak on its doctrine and debate about it," he recorded with a shudder. "I never went back." This snippet comes in a fascinating survey I mentioned two weeks ago, Sidney Griffith's The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque (Princeton, 2008)."

    "The tension was resolved in the reconquest of Spain by Christian forces and the later terrible expulsion of Jews and Muslims. Spain was the only territory long under an Islamic rule where Christians did not (from the pressure of taxation, law and periodic massacre) eventually dwindle into a helpless minority."

    In the end your own sources only supports part of your view, you ignore the negatives since you have omitted the negatives from your view as a presupposition. That is selection bias.

    Quote
    (2) Once upon a time, a widely circulated Jewish document described Islam as "an act of God's Mercy". Also, Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies. No, these aren't fairy tales or propaganda. The relationship between Muslims and Jews really was that cooperative and marked by peaceful coexistence.

    Read: "The Origins and Evolution of Islam: No God but God" by Reza Aslan


    Reza has been shown to be an unreliable scholar. Beside he makes no citation for his source at all. It just some text that he declines to name. Read the book and look for the citation, you will not find it.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #48 - November 01, 2015, 02:19 AM

    Quote
    Spain was the only territory long under an Islamic rule where Christians did not (from the pressure of taxation, law and periodic massacre) eventually dwindle into a helpless minority.


    That really describes the situation of non-muslims in most muslim countries now. The tax, the discriminatory law, and the periodic massacre (it never really made into international news, but muslim rogues torching churches are not uncommon, and their "punishment" are usually like 3-4 years in jail, lol). I would name it terrorism more than massacre though, since usually not many people die, they are just badly hurt.

    We are helpless minority and nobody gives two shits about our rights. Not politicians in power, not rich and powerful muslims, not even the famous Sheikhs who are respected by many muslims in the country. Your average muslims don't care either. There is no effort to give us equal rights. Muslims are only interested in giving back to the ummah, they only donate to zakat/sadaqah and they don't really care about others. We pay taxes and they're used to fill the pockets of rich muslims while muslims never give it back to us. Fucking bullshit.

    Seriously, muslims who cry discrimination in the west makes me barf. I know they don't give a shit about non-muslims, they even try to justify all the discriminatory laws by saying that's just the laws in muslim country are. At the same time they don't want to be treated like second-class in Europe either.

    The double standard. Ew.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #49 - November 01, 2015, 06:16 AM

    But isn't that holding western muslims accountable for the actions of other people?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #50 - November 01, 2015, 07:10 AM

    Quote
    But isn't that holding western muslims accountable for the actions of other people?


    Depends. Some of these people, I realize that they do hold double standards, like defending atrocious laws in ME or other muslim countries that forbid people from eating/drinking in public during Ramadhan. Apparently western laws should accommodate muslims but muslim countries do not need to care of non-muslims.

    I hold nothing against liberal or secular muslims, I realize that they already know it's a problem and they're not trying to hide it. Some of them even want to reform Islam. They are not majority though, LOL.


    I hope they become majority soon.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #51 - November 01, 2015, 09:21 AM

    That really describes the situation of non-muslims in most muslim countries now. The tax, the discriminatory law, and the periodic massacre (it never really made into international news, but muslim rogues torching churches are not uncommon, and their "punishment" are usually like 3-4 years in jail, lol). I would name it terrorism more than massacre though, since usually not many people die, they are just badly hurt.


    Yes history does show a trend of shifting views. My point was not so much that this has happened but that he didn't read his own citation. He just linked it assuming it supported his view without reading it. I was pointing out the irony of linking a source which refuted his grand claims.



  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #52 - November 01, 2015, 02:52 PM

    Wasn't expecting lots of great responses. Which I will hopefully get through soon, but just wanted to quickly fish out some responses that outright reject certain valid claims by citing sources they thought were "credible". Well, it certainly supports their initial agenda/motives... or maybe I'm wrong to judge so soon by jumping to conclusions. It could be simply because they didn't do the research... Lets wait for the response.

    Quote from: bogart
    You didn't read your own article otherwise you would of never put forward the Islamic Golden age:

    In place of knowledge a series of myths has grown. One is of a cultural golden age in Islamic Spain, with Muslims, Christians and Jews living in harmony. Yet Americo Castro, who coined the word convivencia to describe the life of the three faiths in the caliphate of Cordoba, wrote, in his book The Structure of Spanish History: "Each of the three peoples of the peninsula saw itself forced to live for eight centuries together with the other two at the same time as it passionately desired their extermination."


    Americo Castro has been heavily criticized by many mainstream historians. He is actually a critic himself of Spanish history.  If you read the following sentence in my original article from the Telegraph is reads:

    Quote
    The tension was resolved in the reconquest of Spain by Christian forces and the later terrible expulsion of Jews and Muslims


    Did this kook just try to justify The Spanish Inquisition? Do you support his theory bogart? Have you read his book "The Structure of Spanish History"?

    You can start here by reading the reviews of his book: http://www.unz.org/Pub/CastroAmerico-1954

    Then please read this article: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p-2_Chalmers.html

    Quote
    The 'Jewish Question' in 15th and 16th Century Spain Historian Sustains Spanish Inquisition Myths

    Actually, this Spanish "racism" was a response to the ardent ethnic consciousness of the Jews -- both open and secret. In his 1954 study, The Structure of Spanish History, historian Américo Castro finds that Jewish "racism" long preceded the Spanish concern for limpieza: /20
    Quote from this book:

    "The people who really felt the scruple of purity of blood were the Spanish Jews ... The historical reality becomes intelligible to us only when seen to be possessed of both extremes: the exclusivism of Catholic Spain was a reply to the hermeticism of the aljamas [Jewish communities] ... purity of blood was the answer of a society animated by anti-Jewish fury to the racial hermeticism of the Jew".


    Seem like Américo Castro was a racist and an anti-Semite who tried to justify the Spanish Inquisition.

    Quote
    Reza has been shown to be an unreliable scholar.


    There you go again. It's very easy to reject someone and not back it up.

    Quote
    Beside he makes no citation for his source at all. It just some text that he declines to name. Read the book and look for the citation, you will not find it.


    “Islam is an act of God’s Mercy upon Jews,” Shelomo Dov Goitein (1900-1985), a German Jewish historian in his book ‘Jews and Arabs’.

    Quote
    Aslan holds a BA in religious studies from Santa Clara University, an MTS from Harvard Divinity School, an MFA from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, and a PhD in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

     -- Wikipedia

    If you don't believe him then that's your personal choice. However, I can find just as many scholars who find is work to be credible.




    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #53 - November 01, 2015, 03:53 PM

    Quote from: justperusing
    I do not believe Islam is the only reason why the Islamic countries have stagnated in terms of technological and scientific development. I don't even believe it is the main reason. But I think it is a contributing factor (at least some interpretations of it). To think that Islam is perfect is an article of faith. I, however, do not see eye to eye with you on this and in fact believe certain aspects of Islamic scriptures and tradition have impeded progress (perhaps I'm interpreting them wrong, but Muslims can't seem to agree on this themselves). This is not something unique to Islam though. Hinduism, Christianity, and certain Eastern religions have had a similar impact in slowing progress. But certainly European imperialism as well as Zionism have played a huge role in creating the mess in the Middle East we see today.


    I don't believe religion is the primary cause. In the case of Islamic countries, some Muslims are certainly to be blamed for lack of progress and their particular version of Islam. The other problem is that we're generalizing here. The subject is very complex and each "Islamic country" should be criticized on individual bases. There is no single "Islam" but within it there are many different schools of thought, sects. tribes, cultures, and so on (Hence why Muslims can't agree). Certainly since end of the 19th century (1908-1922) and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by Colonial powers. European Colonialism similarly helped cause the decline and instability of many other third-world countries. There is a lot of truth in the quote - 'Divide and Rule'. I think Religion has less of a part to play in this. Imperialism was the main factor.

    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #54 - November 01, 2015, 04:24 PM

    Quote from: Helaine
    You just literally answered nothing. You didn't answer anything about political rights, can a Christian or Atheist be a president? Can Adhan, the noise pollution be stopped?


    Helaine  Smiley
    All your responses and arguments seem to based on personal and emotional feelings. You seem to be demanding answers as if the world revolves around you. My only advice for you is to look at the big picture. Don't know where to start with you... your rebuttals are very silly.

    Quote
    Political right, can an Christian or Atheist be a president?

    Can a Muslim be President or Prime Minister in a Christian country?

    Quote


    Everything is relative...

    Quote
    Can Adhan, the noise pollution be stopped?


    If the majority agree then no. If you're unhappy about 'noise pollution', you're welcome to leave. Is Indonesia stopping you from immigrating abroad? It is considered a selfish act for a person to demand that the majority abide by the rule of the minority. We have this problem with Muslims in UK all the time. They say: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"

    Quote
    This is false, Indonesia and Malaysia are rules by secular democracy. Indonesia had dictator who imprisoned many islamists, and after that dictator fell we have muslim rulers getting more rabid day by day.


    The problem here lies with Indonesians not Islam. Nobody forced Islam down your peoples throats. Demand they get on the streets to mass protest and change the system. So if you're not happy with your leaders than do something about it. Do you believe in 'democracy'? Well, if majority chose to vote for "Islamist rule" in Indonesia then you're the loser. You are in the minority. However, you're welcome to campaigner for your "rights" and remove the Clerics Sheikhs and Imams. I don't so how it is a problem with "Islam" if the majority of your fellow country men like living under "Islamic rule".  If majority want to practice "devil worshiping" then that's their right.

    Quote
    Another Hint: We have had a campaign to stop smoking and banning alcohol from supermarket for a while. Porn is also blocked. Gambling is a crime, drugs possession = death penalty. As far as I know, this is the norm in most muslim countries.


    It not the norm is most Muslim countries but that doesn't really matter. In a democracy the majority rules. I am happy that you were allowed to campaign to stop smoking, drinking alcohol, and stop drugs use and porn. We are doing exactly the same here in UK and this is considered a "democracy"  Smiley

    I can provide you with articles and debates in Parliament and campaigns for the death penalty, all that is listed above. Just ask.

    Quote
    Red herring. This does not answer the systemic discrimination that I said.


    Your grasp of Islamic history is very poor. I will link you up with documentaries/articles by credible western and Jewish scholars and historians soon... Not saying it was perfect, but far better than has been credited.


    Uri Avnery is a Atheist Jew: (read the full article)

    Quote
    For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

    True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

    In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

    THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

    What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

    WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

    Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

    THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1159094813


    Will post more history lessons for you soon...

    "And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #55 - November 01, 2015, 05:59 PM

    Well, at least you don't try to be kind and you don't pretend that Islam is egalitarian or something, like many muslims seem to think.

    Quote
    All your responses and arguments seem to based on personal and emotional feelings. You seem to be demanding answers as if the world revolves around you. My only advice for you is to look at the big picture. Don't know where to start with you... your rebuttals are very silly.


    You still haven't gotten around to answering the systemic discrimination, ok.

    I'm not even... how is it the world revolve around me when I'm mentioning the systemic discrimination of non-muslims under Islam? I'm telling the truth like how it is. None of your rebuttals actually even touch the problems that I mentioned, why because you don't think they're even a problem in the first place.

    You have double standards, just like most muslims do. You demand equal rights in non-muslim country, and yet you openly oppress non-muslims in muslim country.

    If muslims ask for equal rights - that is yours to ask but I'm selfish to ask the same from you?

    Quote
    Can a Muslim be President or Prime Minister in a Christian country?


    Did you even read what I posted? I already posted this issue about Ben Carson. This exact issue, the fact is that there are liberals who actually campaigned for equal rights, and request that to be extended for muslims. There are people, non-muslims who actively campaign so muslims will have the same rights, can be elected in government offices, etc.

    I even raised issue about zakat/sadaqah and ummah taking care of themselves while ignoring non-muslims. If you pay tax as a citizen, you expect to get your money's worth, yes? How is this personal issue?

    I see none of this happening in muslim country, there is no activism or any effort whatsoever done to help non-muslims. You are begging the west to treat you as equal but you are being a hypocrite when you deny non-muslims the rights in muslim country.

    Do you really not see this?

    The next time Ahmed made another clock maybe just persecute him as a terrorist right away, don't care about human rights, prejudice or racism? Maybe the west is right in treating muslims harshly in airports?

    Quote
    If the majority agree then no. If you're unhappy about 'noise pollution', you're welcome to leave. Is Indonesia stopping you from immigrating abroad? It is considered a selfish act for a person to demand that the majority abide by the rule of the minority. We have this problem with Muslims in UK all the time. They say: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"


    Is there a basic human rights, the bottom of the barrel in muslim country? Do you think there should be? Do you consider being left alone - or just eating/drinking to be basic human rights? It is impossible to live normally in Islamic country.

    How does UK muslims fare, are they forcefully woken up from as early as 5am? Do they have disturbing practices that require you to change your whole life around just to abide by their religious rules? (Which you don't believe).

    Quote
    The problem here lies with Indonesians not Islam. Nobody forced Islam down your peoples throats. Demand they get on the streets to mass protest and change the system. So if you're not happy with your leaders than do something about it. Do you believe in 'democracy'? Well, if majority chose to vote for "Islamist rule" in Indonesia then you're the loser. You are in the minority. However, you're welcome to campaigner for your "rights" and remove the Clerics Sheikhs and Imams. I don't so how it is a problem with "Islam" if the majority of your fellow country men like living under "Islamic rule".  If majority want to practice "devil worshiping" then that's their right.


    Dude, even if majority of Americans want to deport all muslims, they can't do it because it's against the law to do it. You know that democracy in western country still give you the most basic of human rights, yet you don't really care when there is none whatsoever in Islamic countries.

    This is why I think muslim whiners in western countries are hypocritical. You don't deserve equal rights - you deserve to be treated like second class citizens. You don't support democracy, human rights, or equality because you actually believe in it, you support it because it helps you gain power. Once you get it, you show your true skin: you never cared about it. Fuck non-muslims, the majority(muslims) gets what they want.

    Quote
    It not the norm is most Muslim countries but that doesn't really matter. In a democracy the majority rules. I am happy that you were allowed to campaign to stop smoking, drinking alcohol, and stop drugs use and porn. We are doing exactly the same here in UK and this is considered a "democracy"  Smiley

    I can provide you with articles and debates in Parliament and campaigns for the death penalty, all that is listed above. Just ask.


    You were telling me that my rulers were not Islamic, which I highly disagree. If anything, even more so now than ever, the rulers are being picked by their piety (omg). These rulers also help to enforce these laws, which I honestly don't care about. But all these laws are done to in compliance with Islam.

    Yes, some of these values are also universal. They are not just Islamic, but people here do like the rules because of Islam.

    Quote
    Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.


    How is this relevant - or even important to the discussion? So the Christian world used to be horrible, then what? Citing 10000papers about how terrible Christianity was have no bearing on how outdated Islam is for the modern world.

    Also -you can't keep posting only positive part of Islam and expect us the believe you. You are not telling the full story.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_%28gen%29.html

    Quote
    The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

    Quote
    Although Jewish life improved under Islamic rule, an interfaith utopia did not exist.[9]:58 Jews still experienced persecution. Under Islamic Rule, the Pact of Umar was introduced, which protected the Jews but also established them as inferior.


    Quote
    Your grasp of Islamic history is very poor. I will link you up with documentaries/articles by credible western and Jewish scholars and historians soon... Not saying it was perfect, but far better than has been credited.


    Why do you keep missing the point? We are living in the present. What matters is NOW. Human rights in Islam NOW.

    In all seriousness, Islam being better than past Christianity is not really a compliment, Christianity was pretty damn horrible.

    Islam is now judged by modern standard, because we live in the present not the past. Even if you cite me 10000 scholars saying that Jews used to like Muslims better than Christians, none of that matters now because the situation is different. It's the other way around now, Christians actually support Israel.

    If you compare Islam with modern standards now, Islam is downright horrible. It is quite obvious that western countries are willing to fight for your rights to be equal - but Islam will happily keep you as second class citizens. Modern humans don't just want shitty ancient coexistence, the standards are much higher now. People actually demand the freedom to blaspheme - because "just living" isn't enough anymore. People want equality and freedom more than ever.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #56 - November 01, 2015, 06:06 PM

    I don't believe religion is the primary cause. In the case of Islamic countries, some Muslims are certainly to be blamed for lack of progress and their particular version of Islam. The other problem is that we're generalizing here. The subject is very complex and each "Islamic country" should be criticized on individual bases. There is no single "Islam" but within it there are many different schools of thought, sects. tribes, cultures, and so on (Hence why Muslims can't agree). Certainly since end of the 19th century (1908-1922) and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by Colonial powers. European Colonialism similarly helped cause the decline and instability of many other third-world countries. There is a lot of truth in the quote - 'Divide and Rule'. I think Religion has less of a part to play in this. Imperialism was the main factor.


    Dismantle of Ottoman Empire by Colonial powers. It's funny when you hear a colonial power was dismantled by another colonial power.

    How was the imperialism the main problem? Please explain.  Bare in mind that is now more than fifty years and there's small if any progress in the Muslims world. Also there are countries like South Korea, Singapore, China who are doing just fine.  Singapore near Indonesia and Malaysia. South Korea was very, very poor after WW2.

    Finally,  can you tell me one Muslim majority country today which you will describe yourself as a success? In terms of richness, human rights, democracy? One in which Islam and democracy, human rights are all getting along just fine.
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #57 - November 01, 2015, 08:09 PM

    I don't believe religion is the primary cause. In the case of Islamic countries, some Muslims are certainly to be blamed for lack of progress and their particular version of Islam. The other problem is that we're generalizing here. The subject is very complex and each "Islamic country" should be criticized on individual bases. There is no single "Islam" but within it there are many different schools of thought, sects. tribes, cultures, and so on (Hence why Muslims can't agree). Certainly since end of the 19th century (1908-1922) and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by Colonial powers. European Colonialism similarly helped cause the decline and instability of many other third-world countries. There is a lot of truth in the quote - 'Divide and Rule'. I think Religion has less of a part to play in this. Imperialism was the main factor.


    I think for the most part we agree. As long as we agree there are multiple factors that are behind the mess in the Middle East today. These include the influence of imperialism, the problems created by the creation and maintenance of the state of Israel , religious understandings that impede progress and condone violence, and other general things like greed and corruption. Of course, things are different on a state by state basis, but once again this is just another area where the issue is very gray rather than being able to point at any one factor and say that that is the only reason why things are shit.

    I guess we can argue the which factors play a bigger or lesser role. I think you overstate the importance of imperialism in creating the mess today and understate religions influence, but I'm not too interested in pursuing this for much longer. As long as we understand this is not as simple as pointing the finger solely at religion or Zionism (or other Western influence).

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #58 - November 02, 2015, 02:19 AM

    Americo Castro has been heavily criticized by many mainstream historians. He is actually a critic himself of Spanish history.  If you read the following sentence in my original article from the Telegraph is reads:

    Did this kook just try to justify The Spanish Inquisition? Do you support his theory bogart? Have you read his book "The Structure of Spanish History"?


    You cited him as your source for your views. Now you question the author after I exposed your source as not inline with what you claimed. You should of done your homework before hand. My views on this book are irrelevant as I was not using it as a source, you were. Again you didn't do your homework and jumped to confirmation bias

    Quote
    You can start here by reading the reviews of his book: http://www.unz.org/Pub/CastroAmerico-1954


    Perhaps you should of read your own source before citing it.

    Quote


    Which says nothing I did not already know which still does nothing to recover your flawed citation.

    Quote
    Seem like Américo Castro was a racist and an anti-Semite who tried to justify the Spanish Inquisition.


    Yet you had no issues citing him as a source when you thought it helped your argument. Again he was your source not mine.

    Quote
    There you go again. It's very easy to reject someone and not back it up.


    Actually I looked through the whole book and it was not cited. Go look at the book yourself.

    Quote
    “Islam is an act of God’s Mercy upon Jews,” Shelomo Dov Goitein (1900-1985), a German Jewish historian in his book ‘Jews and Arabs’.
     -- Wikipedia


    Link the actual page. Besides Aslan's citation is for page 98 but the quote is from page 95. Read your own source....

    Maybe read the book itself. Page 63-64

    "In a treatise against Christians by famous Muslim writer Al-Jahaz, who died in 869, the author asks why the Muslims are less favorably toward the Jews than toward the Christians, when the latter, with their belief in the Trinity, are more offense in their religious tenets and more dangerous as economic rivals.

    His answer is most instructive: the Jews, he says, were immediate neighbors of the Muslims in al-Medina and other places, and hostility between neighbors is a strong and tenacious as that between relatives; for people hate only what they know and are opposed to those who are like them, knowing the weakness of those with whom they are in daily contact.

    Why then did not the bulk of the Jewish community in Arabic recongize Muhammad as a prophet to the Gentiles, as Muhammad demanded while he was still in Mecca; and as the pietist Jewish group discussed in previous chapter obviously did not. This is the more surprising s at the time, before the pagan rites of the Pilgrimage to Mecca were to incorporated into Islam, there was nothing repugnant to the Jewish religion in Muhammad's preaching. Moreover, Muhammad's message to the Arabs was described later on in a widely disseminated Jewish document of the late Ummayyad period, as an act of God's mercy, which was tantamount to acknowledging it as a true religion.

    To my mind, however, it is precisely Muhammad's connection with a dissenting Jewish group, which impelled the majority of adherents of the Jewish faith in Arabia to reject Muhammad outright. Judaism was engaged in a continuous battle against sectarianism, both before and after Muhammad, so much that a special prayer denouncing dissenters, Minim, was included in the daily services.

    The rejection of Muhammad by the majority of the Jews of Arabia is therefore to be interpreted in the light of the internal Jewish struggles between orthodox and sectarianism. On the otherhand, however, it is only natural that Muhammad could not tolerate as a neighbor a large monotheistic community which categorically denied his claims as a prophet, and probably also ridiculed his inevitable blunders in referring to the biblical narratives and laws (as when has has Pharaoh ask his vizier Haman to erect a Tower of Bable."

    So in the end the view that Islam is an act of God's mercy was not to support Islam nor to show its positives but that Islam helped destroy sectarianism within Judaism. The dissenters converted to Islam leaving what was considered pure Judaism intact. This is no more than how Judaism views Babylon and Assyria as God's tool to help reform Judaism by eliminating those that corrupt it. Islam was not the true religion, it was not from God, it was a tool to help Judaism. The author questions the very document you cite. He certainly does not view it as from Orthodox Judaisms but from sectarian Judaism. In the end, as I said, Islam helped by taking the corrupt out of Judaism. That is not a ringing endorsement.

    Quote
    If you don't believe him then that's your personal choice. However, I can find just as many scholars who find is work to be credible.


    I just demonstrated his dishonestly by quoting, in length, the source of his quote which does not support his views.

  • The guardian sent me here
     Reply #59 - November 02, 2015, 03:04 AM

    Can a Muslim be President or Prime Minister in a Christian country?


    Yes.

    Uri Avnery is a Atheist Jew: (read the full article)
    Quote
    For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.



    Not really true. The Ottoman empire had a certain tribute they demanded called devşirme which was a blood tax. They sent troops to kidnap the male children of christians, who were then converted to islam with the goal of selecting and training for the military or civil service of the Empire, including the janissaries. Janissaries were elite infantry units that formed the Ottoman Sultan's household troops and bodyguards, though some would be forced into sexual slavery. Greeks have a certain hostility towards Turkey as they still remember their pre-adolescent children being stolen from them to be converted to islam and trained as soldiers. The devşirme system was such a traumatic thing for the people some resorted to disfiguring their sons so the muslims wouldn't kidnap them. In fact, today the word "janissar" is used as a synonym for traitor in Bulgaria.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »