LATimes - Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered

As did Christianity, eh?

 

I did think it interesting that the author compared the 15th century sack of constantinople with the 1967 Isreali war. There is a rather impressive change in attitudes towards religious marauding during those 500+ years.

That being said, I really don't disagree with the author here - there is a "free pass" of sorts being given to muslims. Not just in warfare or stupid religious dogma, but in society, education, civilization, and tolerance.

It seems that "western" cultures are struggling with how to properly tolerate and lifestyle that is vehemently intolerant, even more so than christianity. As it's been said before in this forum, this is typical for all religions - as the followers liberalize the message, the hardliners provoke a series of stances to rally their power. See the crusades for an example with respect to christianity.

 

Methinks Rhadamanthus nailed it on the head here. The author was comparing ancient Islam (pre-dating even the age of imperialism) to modern day Israel, ignoring the fact that Islamic states, for most of the period in which the transgressions he mentioned took place, were probably still the most tolerant in the world ...

Yes, fundamentalism has taken Islam a step back in the last century, but to pass judgment on the entire religion whilst ignoring Judaism/Christianity's far darker past is the height of folly and arrogance. Pope made the same error though, so no biggie.

LA Times published this? I hope there was some balance in the reporting there.

 

nope. just pointing out in response to your assertion that islam spread via conquest that christianity did too. do you debate that?

i wasnt even thinking about the crusades as much as the spaniards in latin america. if that isnt spreading religion thru conquest i dont know what is.

 

As far as I can tell is relevant. The article points out characteristics of Islam. By pointing them out the author implies that they are characteristics only of Islam and aberrant behavior in comparison to other religions.

If it were not seeking to point out a feature as being unique to Islam the story would make as much sense as a headline reading “Sun Rises in West.”, or “Man Eats Spicy Tex-Mex, Found Screaming in Pain On Toilet Next Morning”. What reason is there to point it out unless it is abnormal or unique to Islam?

 

what are you talking about? how would they reclaim bethleham? its in the hands of palestinian. many of them are christian. and i'd imagine especially in terms of the holy sites it is the christians who run it.

no i think if muslims start talking about taking back spain people shouldn't tolerate it. i think its foolish and stupid. however when 'muslims' talk about palestine its not about 'muslim land' but its about people (15% of them are probably christian) arabs who were forcibly removed from their land. they should have their land or some state or some negotiated peaceful settlement. and i dont think you can draw a significant analogy from the muslim history that is equivalent.

well they converted. the muslims of pakistan aren't immigrant arabs. they are hindus who converted. so who has legal standing?

if you have the time read this. it should help.

and look all this being said of course there are examples from history and especially today of people manipulating islam. just like freedom and democracy work in america the notion of islam works in many segments of the muslim world. you can use freedom and democracy to put japanese in camps or invade latin american countries or liberate iraq. and im not casting a value judgement but simply stating that freedom and democracy are the cliche/ideologies which allow you to pull at the strings of people and justify many things. similarly in the muslim world it is islam. islam doesn't function as a parallel of christianity but of the freedom/democracy/constitution type.

 

Ok, let's equate the two. So Christianity did bad in it's dark ages - 400 years ago?

I guess Islam is in it's "dark ages"

 

why does it matter if islam spread through conquest?

 

i was responding to your statement "fact is, islam spread via conquest". you were speaking past tense (historical). so was i.

 

People are greedy. They are power hungry and selfish. White people...brown people...yellow people...red people...maybe even little green people. They will use anything to further SELF. To further self-interest. They will twist noble means of selfish ends. This is the history of mankind. This is how we've treated each other throughout recorded history.

 

this is why i can't debate you - because you avoid the issue.

THe whole point is that you have a movement within Islam trying to reclaim conquered lands, and you don't have that today with other religions. Why do people not wish to recognize that? Denial?

 

Let's be clear - these fanatics trying to evict Jews aren't interested in having Christians move in. Bethleham is not in the hands of christians - but rather Palestine - a predominantly Muslim area that is seen part of the Islamic world.

And the whole freedom democracy thing is a load of B.S. It's about modernity vs. backwardness.

You look at the U.S. and most Muslim Americans and western Muslims have assimilated. They are still muslims....but modern Muslims. They embrace freedom and democracy. Look at tigermission.

Now to say Islam can't embrace democracy is not true - it just has to be on their own terms.

 

Well there are two problems I think. One is the ISraeli-Palestinian conflict, but even that is rooted more in the 2nd problem. The one you bring up.

The intolerance, poverty, lack of jobs, and feeling of being looked down upon.

We need to figure out a way to aggressive invest in the region, not just infrastructure, but education and public welfare. I think that would be the most effective and pragmatic war on terrorism.

 

What are immagrents? 2nd class no? There is nothing like that in Islam.

Under Islam dhimmis means the people of the contract. You basically give tax and that's all. You have all the rites as any muslim. You are just paying tax to be protected. And in cases when you weren't protected your money was given back.

If you want to see how Islam spread just look at the largest Muslim country in the world. No Muslim army ever conqured Indonesia. Traders went to Indonesia, the Indonesian people saw these Muslims, and decided they wanted to live like them. Just like Indoneisa, China was introduced to the Islam the same way, which is home to 50-100 million muslims. Not just Indonesia and China, but the whole of the Muslim world was converted by their own free will.

 

thanks for addressing none of my points hayes jr.

 

I appreciate that you see it differently, but I still believe that the article in the way that it is written and worded implies that it is somehow a specific and perhaps unique fault of Islam. After another reading I am genuinely perplexed that you view it otherwise. I suppose that if I could sympathize with your reading I would understand your reasoning and opinion would be very... reasonable?

As far as I can tell this article intends to paint Islam in a poor light outside the contextual framework provided by pointing out similar 'faults' with other organized religions. Apparently we are just reading the article in completely different ways.