More reasonable Islam?

[HueyLong]

The Abrahamic religions are rooted in violence and social stratification. Not just Islam.

 

[Faeelin]

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.

I think I'll refrain from wasting my time.

You're free to do some reading on your own, though.

 

[HueyLong]

Sorry, Faelin, but most humanist movements within the Muslim world descend directly from Western Humanism. Look at Tunisia or Turkey, two of the best examples. Look at the Shah's rule in Iran (slightly less good example).

Not Islamic in the least. Muslim, yes, but not Islamic.

 

[Midgard]

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.

uh-huh



nobody's ever ruled ALL of Spain, save *maybe* for Philip II. and boy was he a model of tolerance. [/quote]

Which was my point.

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.

Not strong enough to be a real threat anymore. And by then, Christian Spain was more powerful than them, with more powerful navy, and with access to much greater financial resources. Of course, Christian Spaniards had good teachers, too.

didn't stop the Christians from killing all the Muslims in Europe. and where are the European pagans?

surely they were taxable.

Oh, the pagans. Now, tell me again, how tolerant of the pagans is Islam? And another distinction - Muslims in Europe were invaders. Non-Muslims in the now-Muslim territories are for the most part (not all, but most) the descendants of the invaded. There is a difference. Not that I am supporting slaughter of innocents, in case any would accuse me of it, but throwing out an invader versus forcing a conquered population to suffer much the same do carry a bit of difference.

if the Janissaries were so horrible, why were Muslim families bribing officials to let their Muslim children become Janissaries?

The thing about the Janissaries was the forcible religious conversion, and taking children from potentially unwilling parents.

state education, apprenticeship to a tradesman, and time in the army -- these are signs of a barbaric practice?

Force conversion and brainwashing are pretty barbaric, don't you think?

immigrants and converts.

did Russia and the Ukraine say "convert or die" to their non-Orthodox populations.

So Catholic and Uniate Ukrainians do not exist? And Russia is about 10-15% Muslim, and no one is forcing those Muslims to convert or die. Not even in the worst of the purges or under the most fanatical of the Tsars.

and, using that logic, Christianity discusses the overthrow of established nations, and replacing them with a theocracy.

How many nations did Jesus conquer, overthrown, and replaced with theocracy? Oh, and before you get into it, I am not even a Christian.

Mohammad was the reincarnation of Lenin?

Social stratification with the only way to advance in society being joining the ruling party/religion. Sounds familiar?

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)

Oh, it surely was not all negative. By VIIth century and Dark Ages standards, Islam wasn't bad at all. It is just that it missed out on the social and the cultural developments European civilization has begun in XVIth century and beyond, which is why it does not compare favorably to the MODERN world.

 

[Faeelin]

Sorry, Faelin, but most humanist movements within the Muslim world descend directly from Western Humanism. Look at Tunisia or Turkey, two of the best examples. Look at the Shah's rule in Iran (slightly less good example).

Not Islamic in the least. Muslim, yes, but not Islamic.

If this is true, this is like saying that the scientific Revolution isn't part of Christian culture, since modern thought in Europe was influenced by greek texts translated from Arabic.

 

[Midgard]

The Abrahamic religions are rooted in violence and social stratification. Not just Islam.

Islam is rather unique in that it assigns specific roles in society based on whether or not you are:

1) Muslim - meaning you get full citizen rights, or more or less along those
2) Are of allowed religion - meaning you are second class citizen, inferior in all to Muslims
3) Are of religion that is not tolerated - do I even need to go there?

Abrahamic religions are indeed a violent bunch, and when compared to Old Testament, Muhammad reads just like one of its characters. However, the difference is that this kind of thinking and behavior is not compatible with the much more liberal modern world. As I was mentioning earlier, by VIIth century standards Muhammad might have been one of the better examples of a warlord (although still far from saint) - by XXIst century standards he's morally deficient, and therefore should not be used as a measure to evaluate our own morals against, along with the religion he founded which still revers him in his entire VIIth century "glory".

 

[Midgard]

If this is true, this is like saying that the scientific Revolution isn't part of Christian culture, since modern thought in Europe was influenced by greek texts translated from Arabic.

I think there is a distinction between Christian culture and Western European culture. Note that when the former began to give way to the latter, real social advances happened. Western European culture is partially derived from classical culture, which is where humanist thought was created - and consider where the major humanist thinkers originated from. How large is the percentage of such thinkers originating and performing most of their work in Muslim states? Which is why humanism in its modern form should be considered a Western European accomplishment.

 

[Faeelin]

I think there is a distinction between Christian culture and Western European culture. Western European culture is partially derived from classical culture

And St. Augustine was a barbarian from Scandinavia?

 

[HueyLong]

If this is true, this is like saying that the scientific Revolution isn't part of Christian culture, since modern thought in Europe was influenced by greek texts translated from Arabic.

Humanism in the Muslim world is not rooted in Islam. It may be accepted by Muslims, but it does not take its page from the Qur'an. Whereas in Europe, it became part of the dominant religion, whether it was Protestant or Catholic Christianity.

That is what I meant. That is the distinction between Islamic humanism (taking its justification from Islam itself) and Muslim humanism (humanism as practiced by Muslims or in Muslim countries.)

 

[Keenir]

First, you do not reliably refute anything I say. Instead, you are simply restating the same arguments while ignoring mine.

sounds fairly reciprocal.

and has spread primarily by conquest while being a major impediment on social, cultural, and technological development once the initial conquests are over.

yet it took centuries for any "impediments" to arise in places like Syria, which is practically right next to the heartland of Islam, and was among the first to be conquered.

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?

you mean besides the ambassadors from Britain?

It can't be that the entire world was so hostile to them that they basically did "delenda est Carthago" on Ottomans' accomplishments.

no? the Ottomans were being milked for every cent they had, forced at cannonpoint to give unfair advantage to whomever the Western Powers felt like that week, and the Ottomans were on the losing end of a war.

Especially since there are people out there now who can consider the Ottomans' accomplishments as a matter of national pride.

yes, I agree, Midgard: its a travesty and a horror that these people who are here now, were not around 90 years ago to keep the Ottoman realm from being torn apart.

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?

Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia

...I'm tempted to say Iran.

So, when it comes to Dar-al-Islam's accomplishments, it seems to be a lot more than the Russian Empire can say.

 

[Keenir]

My request for statistics was in regards to Malaysians, not Uighurs.

you'd have to ask Flocc.

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".

so if Uighurs rule non-Muslims in their lands, its not Islamic rule as long as the Uighurs take orders from the Han?
*baffled*

Julius Caesar is not believed to have founded the so-called "religion of peace".

no, he founded the Roman Empire in all but name. try finding people badmouthing that.

 

[Keenir]

It hardly equates with the organized drive by the government to take human tithe -

given the treatment of the Welsh, I'd say the British outdid them.

 

[Keenir]

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.

Christianity.
(like Marx, Jesus said the old ways have to go)

 

[Keenir]

Sorry, Faelin, but most humanist movements within the Muslim world descend directly from Western Humanism.

um, by that logic, Western Humanism isn't even Western...its descended directly from Classical and Ancient Greek.

 

[Ibn Warraq]

If this is true, this is like saying that the scientific Revolution isn't part of Christian culture, since modern thought in Europe was influenced by greek texts translated from Arabic.

To be honest I've never thought of the enlightenment or the scientific as being part of "Christian culture" because I've never seen what Christianity had to do with either of those events. As I posted earlier I tend to feel the same about the scientific advances in the Islamic world and think we tend to shortchange some of the local cultures by ascribing such advances to Islam.

 

[Nicole]

so if Uighurs rule non-Muslims in their lands, its not Islamic rule as long as the Uighurs take orders from the Han?
*baffled*

I would say that it's still technically Islamic rule, but since the Uighurs were limited in their power by and were under the control of the Chinese it's not really the ideal example to use, and can easily be cast away as a special case.

 

[Faeelin]

To be honest I've never thought of the enlightenment or the scientific as being part of "Christian culture" because I've never seen what Christianity had to do with either of those events. As I posted earlier I tend to feel the same about the scientific advances in the Islamic world and think we tend to shortchange some of the local cultures by ascribing such advances to Islam.

How do you seperate them?

Certainly there's nothing obvious about Christianity that makes it a necessary precondition for the Enlightenment, it seems hard to believe that the religious beliefs of Isaac Newton played no role in what he did.

 

[Keenir]

Not strong enough to be a real threat anymore. And by then, Christian Spain was more powerful than them, with more powerful navy, and with access to much greater financial resources. Of course, Christian Spaniards had good teachers, too.

yep - the French.

Oh, the pagans. Now, tell me again, how tolerant of the pagans is Islam?

considering that there are still animists in the Muslim parts of Indonesia and Afria, clearly very.

now, how many pagans are there left in non-Muslim Europe?

And another distinction - Muslims in Europe were invaders.

and the Rus' were...invited to kill the people they conquered?

but throwing out an invader versus forcing a conquered population to suffer much the same do carry a bit of difference.

what's Ukrainian history composed of then? anything before you were part of Russia?

The thing about the Janissaries was the forcible religious conversion, and taking children from potentially unwilling parents.

yeah, shame the Byzantines taught the Turks how to do things like that.

now, how unwilling is someone who bribes an official to let their kid join that group?

Not even in the worst of the purges or under the most fanatical of the Tsars.

my ancestors fled Russia to escape the progroms against the Jews.

How many nations did Jesus conquer, overthrown, and replaced with theocracy? Oh, and before you get into it, I am not even a Christian.

exactly the same number of nations conquered and overthrown by Marx.

Social stratification with the only way to advance in society being joining the ruling party/religion. Sounds familiar?

Christian Europe, Aztec Mexico, probably Han China too.

It is just that it missed out on the social and the cultural developments European civilization has begun in XVIth century and beyond, which is why it does not compare favorably to the MODERN world.

neither does the MEDIEVAL Europe.

 

[Nicole]

considering that there are still animists in the Muslim parts of Indonesia and Afria, clearly very.

now, how many pagans are there left in non-Muslim Europe?

Hm, well, Europe was pretty much Christianized completely by the time Islam even reached Indonesia... Now, there are pagans still around in European Russia (many dying out, but that's a demographic problem), and the Lithuanians survived quite awhile.

now, how unwilling is someone who bribes an official to let their kid join that group?

Yes, because every single Janissary parent was happy to see their child go, right? Every last one of them was willing to bribe an official, right?

 

[Midgard]

And St. Augustine was a barbarian from Scandinavia?

He was a part of what became the Western European culture. Consider that the territory he resided in would have been considered part of the "Western European" culture at the time - the center of the culture has divided into two and shifted, but it was still drawing roots from that tradition, and considered itself direct inheritor of Roman civilization in some shape or form.

Although Augustine himself is not one of the characters I have much admiration for.