Keenir
Banned
separate? then why were kings addressed as "Most Catholic Majesty" and never "Most Secular Majesty" ?
More reasonable Islam?
- Thread starter MrHola
- Start date
separate? then why were kings addressed as "Most Catholic Majesty" and never "Most Secular Majesty" ?
Wasn't until the 16th century, and only France and Spain, IIRC.
Not counting the generally powerless abomination that was the HRE.
Are you suggesting here that things like the traditional taboo on menstruation and the hijab and other body coverings are just syncretic pagan influences in Islam and not what Mohammed preached?
I certainly agree that, had Mohammed grown up and preached in an Arabia that was as developed as, say Persia, Byzantium, or even the Christian Arabian kingdoms in the north, like those of the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids, then Islam would have been very different.
However, I really don't think that it would have made any difference if Islam had gotten even further in its initial push. For example, exposure to the Berber and Kurdish cultures didn't make Islam less restrictive when it comes to women and how men and women should interact...
Press-gangs? And that was in oh-so-civilised Britain. Not to mention similar practices in China. And I seem to recall instances of villagers in Europe (maybe Spain) selling their children to be castrated in order to sing in choirs, IIRC around the same time. Not that any of these are to be excused, but it is hardly evidence of some degeneracy unique to Islamic countries...
Keenir
Banned
that's easy to do, because -
1. the Spanish-speaking world takes up more land than Russia's habitable areas.
2. Spaniards and their descendants make up for the masses of dead native Americans.
3. most of Russia is filled with herders and sparse cities.
[quoteWell, guess what. The proof to date is not on Islam's side.[/quote]
uh-huh
nobody's ever ruled ALL of Spain, save *maybe* for Philip II. and boy was he a model of tolerance.
then why did Christian Spain, after conquering the peninsula, kill and evict all the Muslims? after all, there were still strong Muslim nations just across that narrow strait of water.
didn't stop the Christians from killing all the Muslims in Europe. and where are the European pagans?
surely they were taxable.
if the Janissaries were so horrible, why were Muslim families bribing officials to let their Muslim children become Janissaries?
state education, apprenticeship to a tradesman, and time in the army -- these are signs of a barbaric practice?
immigrants and converts.
did Russia and the Ukraine say "convert or die" to their non-Orthodox populations.
and, using that logic, Christianity discusses the overthrow of established nations, and replacing them with a theocracy.
Mohammad was the reincarnation of Lenin?
that road goes both ways -- if you'd stop throwing stones at anything with a veil, you might see that Islam and the Islamic world has provided the world with many good things (as well as a number of bad things)
Ah, but for the most part, the position of head of the Church did not belong to a secular ruler (well, alright, the Papal States, but honestly they don't really count)- even post-reformation in England the King was only the titular head of the Church, with most powers really held by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Titles like "Most Catholic Majesty" and "Defender of the Faith" prove my point- they came from the Pope.
Keenir
Banned
every peaceful and tolerant religion has been spread by violence.
except for Tibet, which once sacked Baghdad.
Yes but in most medieval states, the bishops and other posts were strongly inflenced and often outright chosen by secular leaders. Also, the church was heavily involved in the legal system, clerics generally being the only ones who were fully literate. There is no one standard, and things were different from time to time and place to place, but secular and religious worlds were most definitely not separate, as even the most cursory glance at medieval history will tell you. I should specify though that I am referring to the west - I can't speak for Russia/Poland etc...
Let me get this right, just so I'm getting what your saying right, Islam is the result of genocide, conquest, rape and is rotten to the core, plain and simple? I, myself am do not subscribe to islam, but that is grossly offensive.
Its flaming, plain and simple.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
But the distinction between the head of the Church and the heads of governments didn't mean that Church and State were separate. Kings and Popes fought over the right to appoint bishops, etc. It's not that different from Islam, is it? The Ottoman ruler had two offices - the Sultanate, his temporal office, and the Imamate (or Caliphate), his spiritual office (even though Caliph was a secular title. There were separate religious and temporal heirarchies, even separate legal "systems"... Likewise, look at the reasons Henry VIII did what he did. What was a Bishop, really? A feudal lord that didn't get to pass his property to heirs - at least not formally.
HueyLong
Banned
Mohammed did preach some of them, but they went even further due to the tribal influences of the people Islam conquered and of the people Islam conquered with.
Unsure on the Kurdish..... explain please?
As for the Berbers, they were matrilineal, but not matriarchal. Women were to stay in the camp, remain separate from males, and, as nomads, they still had big taboos about menstruation. Women had some status as mother-priestesses and gathering leaders, but it was primitive and shaky.
Also, the Berbers were not usually a sedentary people, which reduces their influence a bit (there is less continual contact, they have less cultural continuity, etc...)
If the Arabs had taken much of Anatolia even earlier, maybe even pushing into Europe before Africa, I believe that influenced more by Greek humanist thinking, the Byzantine politics and the sedentary peoples before encountering the tribal peoples of much of Africa, a different, better Islam would have developed.
First, you do not reliably refute anything I say. Instead, you are simply restating the same arguments while ignoring mine. I believe I have provided ample proof that Islam is not only a violent religion at heart, but has numerous unpleasant precepts, has institutionalized social stratification based on religion, and has spread primarily by conquest while being a major impediment on social, cultural, and technological development once the initial conquests are over.
What you offer instead is apologism, plain and simple. If the Ottomans were such a shining example of progressive social structures, why did no one else take note? It can't be that the entire world was so hostile to them that they basically did "delenda est Carthago" on Ottomans' accomplishments. Especially since there are people out there now who can consider the Ottomans' accomplishments as a matter of national pride. And ultimately, when it gets to the end result, guess what? The facts speak for themselves. Look at who the most socially developed countries are nowadays, in a sense of giving the greatest personal freedoms to their citizens, and tell me how many predominantly Muslim countries are on that list?
I am so convinced that I think you should never post on this subject again, less any sinister doubts (planted by the agents of the Mussulman) enter my heart.
So, stop.
Now.
My request for statistics was in regards to Malaysians, not Uighurs. I have made the point that the Uighurs owed fealty to non-Muslim Emperor of China, which means that as non-independent entity they do not qualify as "Islamic rule".
Julius Caesar is not believed to have founded the so-called "religion of peace".
Yet there was a precedent of secular and religious authorities being separate. Constantine did not take the mantle of the Papacy, for example, and the Eastern Emperors clearly believed the Patriarchs to be subordinate to them. Which is what I am referring to - and precedent is what matters, because it influences latter actions.
It hardly equates with the organized drive by the government to take human tithe - and besides, note that oh-so-civilized Britain eventually ended up swept in the tide of humanism, whereas Islamic humanism is something I'm yet to hear about.
Well, the point is, it is historical fact. Not an assertion, but statement of a fact, which is unfavorable to Islam. The deeds of Muhammad, as described by his followers, have included all of the above - genocide, aggressive conquest, and rape. The deeds of his successors speak for themselves... North Africa and Middle East were not mostly Arabic-speaking and Muslim in VIIth century AD. Therefore, my statement is factually accurate. If someone decides to take it as flaming, well, unfortunately truth has a way of being unpleasant.
Then provide me with examples that show there is such thing as Islamic humanism, it is sufficiently widespread not to consider it isolated individual cases, and that it is sufficiently influential in the Islamic world to take note of it.
every peaceful and tolerant religion has been spread by violence.
except for Tibet, which once sacked Baghdad.
How many of those religions had a distinction of their founder being directly implicated in said violence? Other than Islam and Judaism (I think Moses qualifies as a major religious figure, if not a true founder), I can't think of any.