Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[nightflier]

...once they've subjugated the indigenous peoples and brutally killed off all that disagree with them, they were "nice" to those that survived?

There's a problem with that statement, too.

[markw]

There's a problem with that statement, too.

and that would be...?

[nightflier]

During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.

[Feanor]

During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.

This is not so say that Christians, Jews, et al., enjoyed anything like what we think of as "equality" today. Technically they were inferior to Muslims in various important ways -- different military service, (in fact forbidden from military service generaly speaking), and special taxes were typically applied. But at the same time they enjoyed rights and, usually, protection from arbitrary violence, pogroms, and the like that were too common in Christian Europe.

[nightflier]

Indeed.

[markw]

During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.

You make it seem like so much fun! You should be a recruiter for the armed forces.

I'm sure their arrival was seen as a trip to Disneyland in all these countries

[Worf101]

You make it seem like so much fun! You should be a recruiter for the armed forces.

I'm sure their arrival was seen as a trip to Disneyland in all these countries

Whatever your opinon of Islam as it practiced by some in the past and present what you've been told is true. You can characterise it any way you want but, for a time, Muslims were far more tolerant of religious differences than their "christian" neighbors. It's just as simple as that. I was born and raised a Christian and currently practice no organized religion, but fair is fair, truth is truth.

Da Worfster

[markw]

Whatever your opinon of Islam as it practiced by some in the past and present what you've been told is true. You can characterise it any way you want but, for a time, Muslims were far more tolerant of religious differences than their "christian" neighbors. It's just as simple as that. I was born and raised a Christian and currently practice no organized religion, but fair is fair, truth is truth.

Da Worfster

When did their attitudes change, and why? Because they finally got enough of a handle on the situation to let their true intent come to light?

Looking at what's going on in Africa, Indonesia, and other countries under the Moslem influence simply appalls me and. as far as I can see, their style of law goes back as far as I can remember. And, I'm not too sure that a bit of revisionist history doesn't apply, either.

And, I see that Europe is slowly being "invaded" by Islam as well. How long before there is enough influence there to start the change to shahira law there big time?

"Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without kafir influence. The thin end of the longest wedge is to demand that Muslims live outside kafir law in family and banking. Already, in England Islamic family law supercedes British law in families. There is no end to Islamic demands for power. So one day, Muslims in Britain will live under their own law, judges and police. The final stage is when Sharia law replaces English law in totality and kafirs have to live under Sharia law as dhimmis. The British have decided not to oppose this process, but for it to happen slowly and smoothly."

The first bolded section has been tried and failed in Canada but don't be surprised if it resurfaces. It already seems to have gained a foothold in England.

[3LB]

"Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without kafir influence. The thin end of the longest wedge is to demand that Muslims live outside kafir law in family and banking. Already, in England Islamic family law supercedes British law in families. There is no end to Islamic demands for power. So one day, Muslims in Britain will live under their own law, judges and police. The final stage is when Sharia law replaces English law in totality and kafirs have to live under Sharia law as dhimmis. The British have decided not to oppose this process, but for it to happen slowly and smoothly."

Have you been to church lately? Not trying to start anything, but really, do you think other religions don't have laws by which they live? OK so they won't imprison you if you don't 'pop to', but they did a few centuries ago.

I know that the words of the Koran are harsh and are inflexible, but so too are the words of most religious texts. Mormons have laws that are very restrictive, with regards to the power they must yield to their church in social and financial matters, not to mention they are very ritual oriented (secret rituals). They even tell their members how they should have sex. "The only Church" as some catholics call it has a long history of stifling sustenative human development in both society and science, up to and including imprisonment and execution, in the name of holiness. But yeah, I know, it ain't like that no more. Both catholicism and protestantism have rules they want everyone to live by, but they both started acknowledging human rights a century or two ago...took'em a while, but they got there.

Look, I know you think we should come to our own conclusions here, but I think what you are trying to say, is that the muslims are coming and their gonna hold their own inquisition over us westerners. Maybe they're just gonna infiltrate our societies and have their own gov't within established western gov't, until they one day overthrow what's left of westernized society. So what then pray tell is the long term plan. You and Bobstyx can't just keep posting articles about how abrasive and exclusive and murderous the Koran and its followers are because evey religious text can be picked apart and exploited for the weird shit within and that's not even an opinion. If you think they're gonna kill us, then we need a plan. Should we kill them first? Jes wonderin

But if this is about whether or not it might supplant christianity as a major influence, then BFD. As long as I don't have to miss football on Sundays or where a towel on my head, and they leave me alone, and stop putting pamplets on my door...Unless of course Islam does take over under its current inflexible sharia, then we got a several century long dark ages to look forward to again...well, they say there's gonna be a worldwide pandemic in the next few years anyway, where disease and famine will kill billions of people, maybe Islamic leaders will be better at digging mass graves than westerners would be...just a thought.

[markw]

Yeah, I've been to church and they do offer rules to guide my life, but do you really see where they also make the rules for the entire country to live by and enforce them with an iro hand?

Try living under sharia law and being a woman unde rsharia law. How about being blamed if you're a woman who is raped? I don't remember the punishment for adultry but you can bet it's not fun. How about facing cruel punishment (stoning?)for talking to a man who is not a member of your family? How about being allowed to kill your daughter because she brought shame to you?

Men have it a bit easier, but not by too much. How about losing a hand for stealing? How about being hung (and not in the good sense) for being gay?

Oh, yeah, I really see the parallel you're trying to make. [sacrasm mode off] gimme a fargin' break.

Wake up dude. This is going on today, just not here, thankfully! Did you not read the original post?

pssst.... you might want to poke around that link in my previous post.

[3LB]

but do you really see where they also make the rules for the entire country to live by and enforce them with an iro hand?

as I clearly stated above - not anymore

Try living under sharia law and being a woman unde rsharia law. How about being blamed if you're a woman who is raped? I don't remember the punishment for adultry but you can bet it's not fun. How about facing cruel punishment (stoning?)for talking to a man who is not a member of your family? How about being allowed to kill your daughter because she brought shame to you?

"I agree, those things are terrible" - is that the response you think the originator of the post wanted to elicit? are you kidding?

How about losing a hand for stealing? How about being hung for being gay?

stealing what? how gay?

i keed i keed

Wake up dude. This is going on today, just not here, thankfully! Did you not read the original post?

yes I did - but I gotta go take a kid to the orthodontist, so I won't be here for your response (for while anyway). So if you do respond, kindly point out any points you think I've missed with regards to the intent of the original post, or any of yours for that matter, because inquiring minds want to know, and I hate easter egg hunts.

[nightflier]

Mark,

I think you're missing the points being made:

1. Islam 1500 years ago is not the Islam of today. The religion and people under it have changed dramatically. There have been times since Mohammad's time where Islam was more tolerant and times when it was more conservative. But to think for even a minute that Europe under the Inquisition was anything better than life in the Middle East at the same time is absolutely ludicrous. Likewise, the violence against Islam during the crusades as well as the rule under the crusaders was far more violent and oppressive than under Islam. That is historical fact.

2. The stories we hear about Sharia Law being applied are also being challenged within Islamic countries. Therefore, the best thing for the West to do, is to work peacefully with those countries to bring about change. A position such as you're taking, which really boils down to isolation and violent resistance, is what gives militant Islam (and consequent Sharia Law) its strength and reason for being. Ironically, Muslim conservatism is far more at risk from a peaceful interchange of ideas, cooperation, and having to show respect for other beliefs. That can only happen if both sides stop fighting and start talking, which is the opposite of what we've been doing since 911. Speaking of 911, we had far more goodwill from Islamic states immediately following than we've had in the last 5 years, so maybe our policy of violent resistance and also hegemonic conquest is having a rather undesired effect both here in the West, and in their own countries.

All that being said, it is true that Islam is far more immutable than Christianity has been, especially in the last 200 years, but can we really say that this isn't really a response to our colonial aspirations? Looking at states that are more open, such as the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt, the most headway the West has been able to make there was the direct result of peaceful cooperation. At times when Western ideas retreated and conservatism rose were almost always times of conflict. This should be a lesson.

I am not at all excusing what I believe is the inhumanity of Islamic conservatism, and the experience of Lubna Hussein especially, but there must be common ground for us to even begin to have a dialogue about it. Showing up brandishing weapons and religious texts is hardly the way to get there. For your information, Ayaan Ali is what most would consider a conservative (member of the Dutch Ultra-Right Party, read: anti-Muslim), but she never disavows her faith, despite the Fatwa on her head. She's essentially been dealt the same punishment as Salman Rushdie, and yet she perseveres. That's the type of courage we need right now, not guns and angry rhetoric.

[markw]

The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago. Even then, your postulation that living under the yoke of foreigners who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.

As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. As for the punishments I state, while perhaps not 100% accurate, are pretty close.

Do you get the meaning of "dhimmi"(sp). That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow sharia law. Is that what you or your progeny to be, or are you willing to convert?

Look carefully at the population stats for Europe and you'll see that, just like Mexico is doing here, they're being invaded by immigration and reproduction, a foreign influence is slowly taking over.

Read this link and then you tell me that it's not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a majority can, it will apply it's laws.

I have five grand-kids and would like them (and their grand-kids) to live their lives with the same rights we were born with and in the same country in which they were born.

Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under sharia law, then that's your choice.

[Worf101]

The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago. Even then, your postulation that living under the yoke of foreigners who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.

As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. As for the punishments I state, while perhaps not 100% accurate, are pretty close.

Do you get the meaning of "dhimmi"(sp). That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow sharia law. Is that what you or your progeny to be, or are you willing to convert?

Look carefully at the population stats for Europe and you'll see that, just like Mexico is doing here, they're being invaded by immigration and reproduction, a foreign influence is slowly taking over.

Read this link and then you tell me that it's not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a majority can, it will apply it's laws.

I have five grand-kids and would like them (and their grand-kids) to live their lives with the same rights we were born with and in the same country in which they were born.

Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under sharia law, then that's your choice.

Mark, while I understand and even share some of your concerns (I'd want myself nor my loved ones anywhere near Sharia Law) I'm not as alarmed by Islam's rise as you. There are several reasons for Islam's rise and popularity of Sharia law, particularly in the 3rd world.

1. Sharia law is while considered harsh and draconian is at least 'fair". That's its major appeal in the 3rd world. Most "governments" in the 3rd world are so corrupt there's not even a hint of "justice" in the room, just the stench of abuse, patronage and graft. Muslims in the hills come down and say, hey, while we might flog you, behead you ror stone you, the law is inviolate, incorruptable and applied equally (such as it is). Until the west or their home societies can give them something "better" Islam and Sharia Law will continue to attract converts.

2. Lets face facts, White, Christian Westerners ain't having enough goddamn kids. Simple as that. England may be drowning in Muslims but it ain't their fault that they keep having kids and Lord Fortesque's line has died out like Bobby Browns recording career. You want to hold on to your country's ideals, culture and political bent? Well you better start having some kids then. You can't hold an empire from the grave man!!!! And it appears that many of the kids today don't seem to share the same jingoistic xenophobia as their parents soooo. You do the math.

Da Worfster

[markw]

Dude, I've got three grown boys and five grand-kids so far. I've done my share and I really would like to wait a while before starting on great-grand-kids since the oldest grand-daughter is 14.

And, while I hear you, I don't think color or religion has anything to do with it. I know many black Christians and various non-Christians of various colors as well who are aware of this situation as well.

There's a great video on exactly what you're saying on this somewhere and I'll try to dig it up. I think the magic number is 1.9. When i find it, I'll post it.

[edit] found it!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqpn-FpFnuM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqpn-FpFnuM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Auricauricle]

In discussions and readings I have participated and perused, it seems that many matters related to religious doctrine and practice boils down to matters of interpretation. I think it is fair to say that many religious works have described horrible consequences for the unfaithful (infidels) and those who are not members of the “chosen people”. In our own Bible, there are many such passages in the Old and New Testaments, and that message is effectively used to keep the flock in the pens, safely secure from the ravenous wolves outside.

As I said, though, these texts can be interpreted any way the reader wishes to. For the True Believer, who interprets texts literally, the justice of the Mosaic Law may well be a Divinely inspired prescription. For those who read the Bible as a metaphorical text, perhaps the scriptures are to be interpreted in a more contemporary light. Just as the U.S. Constitution has been used to delineate the practices and comportment of lawgivers, etc., it took many years before lines like “All men are created equal” were truly examined.

I see literal translations of such texts as rather narrow-minded and as a blunt instrument to keep parishioners in line and to keep outsiders from tainting bloodlines. For populations that are uneducated or whose creative or imaginative spirit is squelched in the name of the Church, a given preacher or Ayatollah, such an appreciation of the Good Book, the Torah or the Koran is quite effective.

On the other hand, contemporary interpretations of these texts, is possible in a diametrically different society, where creativity, imagination and education are allowed to flourish. Opposed to regimes that are threatened by these things, societies that embrace such interpretations are far more flexible and do not see the need to instill by fear but inspire through knowledge.

Whether we’re talking about Christian, Jewish or Islamic faiths and peoples, we are talking about tribes. These texts have been used for many centuries not only as an expression of peoples’ experience and faith, but as documents to inspire and understand. Whether we use those books to share doctrines and discuss them respectfully or use those same tomes to clonk each other over the heads is the question we ought to be thinking about.

[3LB]

so we're ultimately worried about absorption or expulsion of one culture into/by another...to combat it, we could have more kids, and lead lives condusive to affording and supporting lotsa kids (got it), but if we can't, for some reason, have lotsa kids, could we maybe support others who are willing to do so, through some sort of public funding...we could call it...welfare...oh the irony of it all

does this mean we have to go to church too? cuz I don't want to - the message is boring and the music sucks.

I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely.

You are right there, because western civilization is a much safer place for women. You'll never see a woman flogged in an official capacity here. Soooo...how much higher is the rate of sexually based crimes against women in Islamic countries?

and just to set the record straight, I do not support or condone sharia law - I like women in pants, preferrably jeans.

[Auricauricle]

I agree: I don't think color, religion, or whatever is at the crux of these arguments. All of these things are clever smokescreens to identify the enemy. It's just a matter of Us and Them. Period.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zlY-JlE5ZCo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zlY-JlE5ZCo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[nightflier]

Sticks, you've been inconspicuously quiet. Are you still lurking around?

[Auricauricle]

3LB, at the risk of being crass, I would say that your remark pertaining to offspring as insurance in case of incursion may well be spot on. But this matter, like matters of interpretation of certain texts, ought to be considered in terms of historic and anthropological (and other) points of relevance....(As most of the previous remarks seem to indicate).

[3LB]

3LB, at the risk of being crass, I would say that your remark pertaining to offspring as insurance in case of incursion may well be spot on. But this matter, like matters of interpretation of certain texts, ought to be considered in terms of historic and anthropological (and other) points of relevance....(As most of the previous remarks seem to indicate).

huh...?

[bobsticks]

Sticks, you've been inconspicuously quiet. Are you still lurking around?

Nope...no lurking...I've had a major push at the beginning of this week in order to be fully free and available for this vacation and the Chicago AR Summit...Swishy, Autumn, Mid-Fi, I shall see ye all on the morrow...

There's been a lot of great points and a comendable amount of civility in this thread...there's been some Inaccuracy too. Historical fact doesn't change because it doesn't meet with our current set of precepts or it "hurt peoples delicate feelings"...as just one example the Zoroastrians, Manichaeans, and followers of Mithras did not, in fact, fare any better under Muslim rule that the subsequent Christian empires...when historians say "marginalized" they mean peeps got killed.

My pont of this thread, within the context of what else has been occuring on AR, is that human history is full of tragedies, evils commited by virtually every group that has come to power...regardless of theology or doctrine. Everytime you get more than two people in a room the possibility of lynch mob mentality and malfeasance increases exponentially.

I would suggest that in order to maintain a longterm involvement in a site like this, one must be relatively "successful"...by that I mean, that while one might not be fantastically rich, you prolly don't live in a desert

Until we recognize that it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated, that everyone be given an opportunity to succed or fail...and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses...well, we're gonna continue to create underclasses that will lash out, will seek to oppress, seek to control...simply, seek to survive and do so in the only given eschatological context with which they are familiar.

...and none of this changes if one buries his head in the sand like an ostrich and engages in historical revisionism.

[Feanor]

...
Until we recognize that it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated, that everyone be given an opportunity to succed or fail...and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses...well, we're gonna continue to create underclasses that will lash out, will seek to oppress, seek to control...simply, seek to survive and do so in the only given eschatological context with which they are familiar.

...and none of this changes if one buries his head in the sand like an ostrich and engages in historical revisionism.

All this and you're a Republican?

Whew! Speaking of historical revisionism and head-in-the-sand.

Is it a case if cognative dissonance?

[Mr Peabody]

Sticks, are you Republican? I used to consider myself one before the Bush administration, now I have no affiliation that I claim. I feel the U.S. needs a third party, at least, one who can be conservative yet still tend to the needs of the people. By needs I mean place the same importance on education and way of life as much as missiles.

[3LB]

Until we recognize that it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated, that everyone be given an opportunity to succed or fail...and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses...well, we're gonna continue to create underclasses that will lash out, will seek to oppress, seek to control...simply, seek to survive and do so in the only given eschatological context with which they are familiar.

I went back and re-read your first post...I still can't see this^message in that post...you sure like takin' the roundabout approach Bobby

But I totally agree...history is full of opression. No one religion or philosophy has been any worse or better than another. One culture has usually advanced at the expense of another. Cultures fall for various reasons, many of them self-inflicted. Since humanity doesn't actually ever learn anything from history, we should prolly just avoid it.

It is too bad that the only outreach of 'education' from our end seems to be religious missionaries who have a Bible-first agenda. The underclass has always been the target of religious missions...its an easy sell - "you are not in charge of your own situation, let God take care of it for you; here, have some bread and water and this new soccer ball".

So, if "it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated", who is doing the educating, and how?

and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses

that's just not the NWO way...the best part about being in charge is by being able to tell at a glance who the downtrodden are, and keeping them there by manipulating them - its why people want to be in charge. It isn't just about having a piece of the pie, its about saying who else gets to have some too.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>