Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
Astaghfirullah!
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
This is your bottom-line. Now we're talking.
That you think the Crusades/Inquisitions were fought in 'self-defense' is a subjective view. If I humor you, what's the difference between 'large scale invasion' in the name of religion, and suppressing and persecuting populations in the name of religion? How does that make a European any less religiously violent than a Moor? I'm surprised you're making such an obviously nonsensical argument. In any case, blaming Islam for the ME riots is facile. You were making more sense when you talked about religion being usurped by politics.
If you're claiming that the Quran encourages violence while the Bible and Torah does not, you are being blatantly disingenuous. Either you condemn them collectively, or adopt the more critical view that Abrahamic scriptures tell stories of both war and peace, bloodshed and tolerance. Scholars from all 3 traditions analyze and understand them in a larger contextual framework. The same texts can be manipulated to make the case for both violence and peace. I would take you more seriously if you argued monotheism, by its very non-inclusivity and claims to superiority, fosters intolerance and violence. Instead, it is telling that you single out Muslims and insist, in defiance of history, that they are uniquely inspired by their scriptures to commit violence while Christians and Jews act 'defensively' and converted people with sing-song. Even Christian apologists don't claim this. Do I have to quote from the Old and New Testaments, the Torah, to show you that we all come from the same source? Christians are quick to disown the Old Testament, which they attribute to the Judaic tradition. (When in doubt, blame it on the Jews). They emphasize Jesus' Last Sermon and his famous 'turn the other cheek' to the exclusion of controversial statements like 'I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.' Muslims, to their credit, have stuck with one text and own all of it - the good, the ugly, and the misunderstood. We don't pretend the last Prophet was a tree-hugging hippie. We don't recognize any of the Messengers to be unconditional pacifists. We recognize the Quran as a text that was revealed over a period of 23 years, a compilation of events and recommendations, some historically contingent, some normative. That Islam currently faces a crisis of scholarship with Salafism being funded and propagated is another matter.
Anyhow, why not just assert that Islam is a violent religion from the get-go. Why put up a pretense about respecting the Prophet's teachings. That's unnecessary. Don't fear the moderators, you shouldn't have to apologize for your beliefs. However I'm not very skilled at debating with racists. Condemning scripture is one thing, but questioning the genetic and cultural makeup of Arabs is a whole other level of right-wing crazy. Generalizing about 400 million people living in 22 countries isn't something educated people like yourself do. To that end, Arabs and Jews are cousins, and it's not a coincidence both are uncouth and hairy. Look, I made a funny.
You'll agree this is a waste of time, and it's derailing this thread. Start one in R&S and we can discuss how the children of Abraham are inherently savage to your heart's content.
ps. I'd be surprised if you had any Arab or Muslim friends. Mingling with cultures other than your own is an antidote to disdain and ignorance, which is really just thinly disguised fear. Try it sometime.
This is my last post on this topic, as you said it could be wast of time. Just want to clarify my points.
I have to give you credit for getting to core of my predicament. I did not want to start another flaming conversation, hence used race instead of religion. Same way, it sounded like I am saying violent suppression is better than wars. What I meant was, from the beginning of time one class/group always used violence as a tool to rule the other. In the beginning it was simple, we need the "furs" you have or we want your cattle etc. As human race developed they become more sophisticated, started finding other reason, but the aim the same, your wealth.
Stories of wars and violence as part of the religious literature is one thing, spreading an entire religion with invasion is another. It becomes the doctrine of the religion. In The stories of Bible again does not mention violence as part of religion, the war or violence mentioned in Bible are mere record of history, in fact record of history before Jesus. Christianity did not rule vast part of the land in matter of 200 years. Again initially the religion spread as with apostles. I am not saying Christianity is better. In fact, as I mentioned before Prophet has given a very rational thinking guide to lead people to a way of life which was very much in need at that time in that area.
The issue is the way it spread. It was the first religion that spread by war. The spread of communism in eastern Europe is the closest thing I can compare the spread of Islam to. A group that strongly believed in an ideology and swept the rest of the world with war. Religion thus became nationalism. (I sometimes wonder why three of the first four Khalifas were assassinated?) Today every country where Muslims are minority (even < 5%) have groups of Muslims holding grudge against the government in the name of religion. They want to put religion above nationalism. It offends the rest of world. In fact most countries have recent memory of sacrifices they made to achieve the nationhood they have; imagine how would they feel. Imagine how would memorial to your war heroes desecrated by a religious groups because, people of that religious group are being killed elsewhere .
You are a sophisticated thinker and prolific writer; I know you understand by argument here. Use of violence to spread religion was started by one religion and to large part it is still using violence to fight the perceived threat.
BTW, I have Christian and Muslim and Arab friends. My Arab friend is a mentor to me and helped me very much; but he is not a Muslim though. One of my best friend a moderate Pakistani women, she would never discuss these things. I grew up with Muslims at school and at home. In fact, I could never discuss with any of my Muslim friends in detail about religion. I am a history and human geography buff.
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
Can someone explain the real reason behind all these protest against USA. As far as I know this film wasn't censored there.
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
^ UAT?
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
^USA, Edited :)
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
^ ok np...
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
Can someone explain the real reason behind all these protest against USA. As far as I know this film wasn't censored there.
Anti Americanism is at an all time high due to the arrogant US policies after the WOT, I see this issue as a reason to vent the frustration and anger towards them.
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
It was the first religion that spread by war
Not true. Worship of the Greek gods was spread by invasion, as witnessed by the existence of the temple-city of Ai-Khanoum in what is now modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeological excavations revealed many temples to Greek gods in this city, the largest temple being that of Zeus. This religion was spread into Afghanistan by Alexander the Great's war of conquest.
The related Roman religion similarly spread across their empire in the wake of their later conquests, which is why you can find the ruins of temples to Roman gods spread across countries that neighbour the mediterranean.
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
Not true. Worship of the Greek gods was spread by invasion, as witnessed by the existence of the temple-city of Ai-Khanoum in what is now modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeological excavations revealed many temples to Greek gods in this city, the largest temple being that of Zeus. This religion was spread into Afghanistan by Alexander the Great's war of conquest.
The related Roman religion similarly spread across their empire in the wake of their later conquests, which is why you can find the ruins of temples to Roman gods spread across countries that neighbour the mediterranean.
The motive for Alexander's invasion was not to spread the message of god or make the rest as believers. He invaded to expand the influence and therefore the wealth of his people/nation. Same goes to Romans. You occupy a land you need your temple, which are your center of social activity. They allowed other religions to exist, that is why native religions Buddhism/Hinduism existed in Afghanistan when Islamic invasion started. But, on the other hand wars/attacks were part and parcel of the religion in question here. If I am not mistaken there were armed conflicts even in the very formative years of Islam.
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
The motive for Alexander's invasion was not to spread the message of god or make the rest as believers. He invaded to expand the influence and therefore the wealth of his people/nation. Same goes to Romans. You occupy a land you need your temple, which are your center of social activity. They allowed other religions to exist, that is why native religions Buddhism/Hinduism existed in Afghanistan when Islamic invasion started. But, on the other hand wars/attacks were part and parcel of the religion in question here. If I am not mistaken there were armed conflicts even in the very formative years of Islam.
That's an interesting take, but the fact is, those who conquer almost always believe they have divine providence.
With pagans, they had an ability to take in local deities.
With monotheistic faiths, that was never an option, and that does include Christian Rome.
On the other hand, the view of Islamic expansion as purely religious is nonsensical.
Persia. Fell into Muslim hands in 637, but did not Islamicize until the 10th century, and that too in quite a distinct manner from the Arabs.
Byzantium/Rome. Never Fully fell, but a long standing conflict began. This conflict began with hostilities initiated by their client states against the early Ummah.
Jizya - a compromise, where the early Muslims were not ones to compromise on matters of faith. It was political.
Indeed, these early conquests can only rationally be looked upon as political ventures, especially during later Muslim empires which were very much imperialist in their outlook. The religious overtone is also to be found in the later, more sophisticated, Christian experiment with Imperialism and later colonialism.
What drove Muslims is a sense of Muslims not being able to practice Islam without being dominant. That was the Rashadin reality, and that probably became the Ummayad operating theory: you are either conquered (and loose your faith), or you conquer.
Missing from the discussion is the extent to which Christians went to re-introduce Christianity and Christian dominance into lands occupied by Muslims. It was not merely political. The Spanish cleansing of Spain is much more through and directed, and simply cannot be compared to the loose and lacklusture conversion efforts by Muslims in Byzantium and Persia.
Also note that Malaysia and Indonesia did not have military contact with Muslims. Nor did mainland China, yet the Muslim arrival and political discourse with China is markedly distinct from that of Persia and Rome. The battle of Talas may have secured Abbasid (I think) influence over central asia, but it really didn't lead to long standing hostilities with China, at least not from the Arabs.
The spread of Islam is a complex subject. Reducing it down to "it spread by war" is laughable.
Finally, the purest and most recent example of attempting to spread an ideology through force was the last Gulf war. The only coherent stated reason for that war was the removal of a tyrant, and the establishment of freedom and democracy. Thus, democracy is currently being spread by the bomb...sword I suppose is much too old school. So one doesn't really need to bend back so far as to discuss Nazis and Commies.
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
[QUOTE]
*This conflict began with hostilities initiated by their client states against the early Ummah. *
[/QUOTE]
That is the key "ummah" the concept of "state for believers" as against state for Greeks or Romans or Persians etc. Greek religion co-existed with Roman gods in Greece during Roman occupation.
[QUOTE]
****Jizya - a compromise, where the early Muslims were not ones to compromise on matters of faith. It is political
[/QUOTE]
It can't be political; politics always involves compromise. That's why religion should not be in politics.
[QUOTE]
Indeed, these early conquests can only rationally be looked upon as political ventures, especially during later Muslim empires which were very much imperialist in their outlook.
[/QUOTE]
Key is "later times", but the origin of a religious state through conflict has been established around 622.
[QUOTE]
The religious overtone is also to be found in the later, more sophisticated, Christian experiment with Imperialism and later colonialism.
[/QUOTE]
Christians and others adopted the same tactics later as a response. Think about it. Romans killed Jesus, the followers did not revolt true to his teachings, they changed the society from bottoms up all the way to the King. Later when religion got into politics we know how decadent Rome had become.
[QUOTE]
What drove Muslims is a sense of Muslims not being able to practice Islam without being dominant. That was the Rashadin reality, and that probably became the Ummayad operating theory: you are either conquered (and loose your faith), or you conquer.
[/QUOTE]
you got my point.....that is the perception that gave the doctrine of use of force to achieve the end....right or wrong...I am not qualified to be the judge.......that is why I compared it to spread of communism in East Europe (again, I can't say communism was right or wrong; only history will judge).
Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya
That is the key "ummah" the concept of "state for believers" as against state for Greeks or Romans or Persians etc. Greek religion co-existed with Roman gods in Greece during Roman occupation.
Persian religion did not. Conquered adopted the religions of the conqueror, even in Greece. State for believers is merely a sequence of events. Christianity was the state religion of rome. In that, they are identical.
[quote]
It can't be political; politics always involves compromise. That's why religion should not be in politics.
[/quote]
Editorial aside, the point is there was compromise. So by your own criteria it was political.
[quote]
Key is "later times", but the origin of a religious state through conflict has been established around 622.
[/quote]
Yes, the state was born of conflict. So what?
[quote]
Christians and others adopted the same tactics later as a response. Think about it. Romans killed Jesus, the followers did not revolt true to his teachings, they changed the society from bottoms up all the way to the King.
[/quote]
Followers would have been slaughtered en mass if they revolted. Lack of persecution of this very early church lead christianity to spread thanks to Pax Romana. In the case of Islam, there was no possibility for an 'underground mosque'. The population was too sparse. On the contrary, the Muslims would have been slaughtered en mass if they didn't engage in conflict.
There is no analog here, though this early history clearly impacts an adherent's world view.
[quote]
you got my point.....that is the perception that gave the doctrine of use of force to achieve the end....right or wrong...I am not qualified to be the judge.......that is why I compared it to spread of communism in East Europe (again, I can't say communism was right or wrong; only history will judge).
[/QUOTE]
It was politica...