The two faces of Islam.

[Imran Siddiqui]

come on, Imran, you're better than that. This is a well-known excuse, not the real reason of the problems of the arab world. The arab world was generally speaking left alone, in terms of colonialism, relatively to most of the world, And Israel could only be held at some sort of "guilt" only if it could be considered guilty of giving the arab leadership an excuse to the poor conditions of the Arab world. The arab world is blinded by it's illustrious history, and its' machoistic psychology stops it from realizing the grave condition in which it is. The arab world is also guilty in most of the crimes of the "White man", prior to the 20th century, as it engaged in colonialism, slave trade, and the forceful expansion of it's main religion.

Like Ramo said, 40 years ago you didn't have this Islamism. What is the difference? The legacy of colonialism, ie a feeling of being lessor people than the white Europeans. The other thing that has happened in the last 40 years is the Isreal problem has intensified.

Do you have a better reason for why 40 years ago you didn't have fundamentalism in Arab states and now you do?

[Ned]

Ah, but Imran, Wahhabism is 200 years old.

But, but the better question, is there any time in history where Islam was tolerant of other religions inside their empire or really interested in co-existence with their non Islamic neighbors? Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace.

[Capt Dizle]

Profiling in criminal enforcement should be treated as a completely different issue. This is a war on terror and law enforcement in the US is acting as an extension of our military.

It is the duty of all Americans to endure the infringement of our civil rights in order to ensure the greater good as long as this war and the threat to our country and freedom exists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, but Imran, Wahhabism is 200 years old.

But never was a powerful force in Islam until now.

I can easily say that slavery is millenium old, does that mean Christianity was always (and currently is) pro-slavery?

Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace

That's because you choose to be purposely blind.

Islam has always been more tolerant of other religions than Christianity. Look at the Jews in the mid ages. They really liked being under Christian rule.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
But, but the better question, is there any time in history where Islam was tolerant of other religions inside their empire or really interested in co-existence with their non Islamic neighbors? Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace.

You Ned seem intent in ignoring any part of history that might disagree with your premade assumption, even if it exist in piles.

Can you show us Christianity's peaceful allowance of other relegions until well after the Renaissance- in fact , well into Victorian times? Oh, yeah, forget Christianity's treatment of the main non-Christian minority of the time- Jews. And the treatment of different Christian sects. I mean, no one burned Jan Huss alive, did they?

I can point to the treatment to Jews in muslim Spain, as compared to their treatment in Catholic Spain. Which was more peaceful and tolerant?. Or the long lived Jewish community of Istanbul v. the Long lived Jewish community of London...wait, the Jews were only allowed back in london late in the 17 century. whoops, sorry.

Oh, and of course we all know that Muslims wipped out all Chritian communities in thier power, the savages! Except the Maronites, the Copts, the Armenians (until late Ottoman, young turk secular rule) and so forth.

The reality is that Islam has not been more violent or more apt to persecute than any other major relegion in power. Where Muslims ecumenical? Did they treat other relegions as equals? Of course not, no one did. But you can hardly say that Muslims wipped out any other non-pagan relegious community (compared to Japanese rulers who wipped out Christians, or the Chinese who persecuated them, and still do) Anyone who 'sees' this is looking at selective history, ignoring the counter evidence to justify an untenable (if we judge by historical evidence) position.

[Ned]

GePap, IIRC, Jews joint the battle against the Christian Roman Empire and Christain Visigothic Spain. Could this help explain the difference in treatment?

As far as I can see, the Islamic assault on the Christian West and India continued for more than a 1000 years with Islam winning more than losing until the battle of Lepanto. During the last two or three hundred years, the tide turned radically in favor of the Christian West with the dismemberment of the Turkish and Mogul Empires. It seems though, that Islam is on the rise again. The clerics are beating the drums of holy war. The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

As to toleration?, simply ask the Armenians. The Turks nearly wiped them out, IIRC. It wasn't that long ago either.

Your arguments that Islam is no more intolerant that Christianity is irrelevant. I agree that Christianity is intolerant. In fact, I think the Holocost is the legacy of anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely based in Christian intolerance. But even if Christianity has its ugly side does not mean that Islam does not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um, Ned... you said:

is there any time in history where Islam was tolerant of other religions inside their empire or really interested in co-existence with their non Islamic neighbors? Islam has a continuous history of oppression and war in the name of religion, as far as I can see, with no history of peace.

So we answered your question. You can't change the question after it was answered.

[Ned]

Well, Imran, I would rather treat Islam as inherently suspect - just as I treat Christianity. Neither religion should have temporal power, because when they do, they tend to use it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I don't think anyone disagrees with that statement. The problem is people saying Islam creates a fundamentally different mindset than Christianity. Both create messed up mindsets whenever they control everything.

[Velociryx]

You know what...you're right Imran....there IS no fundamental difference of mindsets.

That is precisely why you see, here in America (which is dominated by Christianity in one form or another), there is an Islamic community that is currently being protected BY society at large.

There HAVE BEEN attacks made on Muslims and their places of worship here, but those attacks have been loudly and unequivocally condemned, and protection lent to Islamic groups here (and in fact, I just saw a new item today how there is a large degree of cooperation between some islamic groups in the US of A and law enforcement divisions).

I wonder....where are the Christian communities in Islamic countries, and how are they faring? Perhaps a field trip is in order. Why don't we get a volunteer from the ranks of those who don't believe there's any significant difference in the mindsets of the two groups, fly him to Islamabad with a crucifix and a bible and have him mill about the city streets for a while. You know....just to see what happens.

I'm sure he'll be just fine!....show of hands for volunteers? Imran? GePap? Anyone?

No?

Why not?

-=Vel=-

[Az]

Like Ramo said, 40 years ago you didn't have this Islamism. What is the difference? The legacy of colonialism, ie a feeling of being lessor people than the white Europeans. The other thing that has happened in the last 40 years is the Isreal problem has intensified.

Do you have a better reason for why 40 years ago you didn't have fundamentalism in Arab states and now you do?

I was talking about arab culture. Both Islamism of today and pan-arabism of the mid 20th century are the expressions of the same way of thinking.

plus, a specific answer is needed on this passage:

The legacy of colonialism, ie a feeling of being lessor people than the white Europeans

This has nothing to do with colonialism. a feeling of being "lesser people" than white europeans was connected not to the fact that the arabs were conquered, for periods of mostly 30 years, but ranging from 140 to 20 years. This has to do with the arabs having seen the advancement of the european world, and the increase of it's relative strength much beyond theirs.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, IIRC, Jews joint the battle against the Christian Roman Empire and Christain Visigothic Spain. Could this help explain the difference in treatment?

As far as I can see, the Islamic assault on the Christian West and India continued for more than a 1000 years with Islam winning more than losing until the battle of Lepanto. During the last two or three hundred years, the tide turned radically in favor of the Christian West with the dismemberment of the Turkish and Mogul Empires. It seems though, that Islam is on the rise again. The clerics are beating the drums of holy war. The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

As to toleration?, simply ask the Armenians. The Turks nearly wiped them out, IIRC. It wasn't that long ago either.

Your arguments that Islam is no more intolerant that Christianity is irrelevant. I agree that Christianity is intolerant. In fact, I think the Holocost is the legacy of anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely based in Christian intolerance. But even if Christianity has its ugly side does not mean that Islam does not.

Regarding teh Jews in Spain: Nope. Read up on the history of the caliphate of corboda. Christians were welcomed and accepted, and many rapidly took up arab customs, if not Islam. Then came hte reconquista, which began after the fall, as a crusade. This resulted in the almost puritan almohads invading Christian Spain, comitting dozens of atrocities, and turning the reconquista into the 400 year long holy war which gave the spanish their well-known enlightened, secular, tolerant mindset.

I'd argue that Islam, when facing "Christianity", has traditionally lost. Even in the time period that marks what is called the "dark ages" of the west, islam never made significangt inroads. Byzantium held on to Anatolia, losing it in 1071, but was reclaiming it before the 4th crusade.

After invading southern france, frankish noblemen began leading armies which, slowly but surely, pushed the arabs out of southern france and northern spain. Arab sicily lasted until approximately 1066, when the normans invaded. The crusades, in turn, showed that a small force of westerners, thousands of miles from home, with little or no resupply, could still smash most arab armies handily.

Finally, in 1453, the ottoman empire took constantinople. But the byzantines fell only after the venetians sacked constantinople, and spent the nxt 50 years bleeding the empire white.

Then the italian city-state of Venice was able to fight the Turks, losing gradually. A single city state, with a population of no more than 200k, was able to hold back an empire which ruled millions. By the dawn of the 18th century, the ottomans existed only because they were a buffer to russian expansion.

Sure, you can point out the byzantine loss of egypt, but the populace there was sick of byzantine perseuction for being monophysites. The Visigoth kingdoms were little more than rabble; semicivilized barbarians.

[Velociryx]

From Ned: The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

Couldn't agree more.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

This has to do with the arabs having seen the advancement of the european world, and the increase of it's relative strength much beyond theirs.

That's exactly what I meant. When you are top dog (basically) and then are made to feel like lesser people, you tend to get violent. It has happened all over. Look at China for instance. The Boxer Rebellion comes from the fact that the Chinese were the top and then were made to be Europe's slaves (basically), and things turned violent.

If the China now rises to hegemon and the US is treated like they are lesser, I can imagine some American violence erupting.

I was talking about arab culture. Both Islamism of today and pan-arabism of the mid 20th century are the expressions of the same way of thinking.

The pan-Arabism was a TOTALLY secular movement. It was a result of shaking of colonialism from the British and French, which had come not long after the Islamic culture was much more advanced than Europe.

[Ned]

Actually, the Berbers, who led the conquest of Spain, were "converted Jews," Jews who had just twenty years earlier been forced to convert to Islam or die. After the conquest, these Jews were able to resume formal practice of their faith.

It also appears that the Jews of Visigothic Spain actually begged the Arab-Berbers to come to Spain to help them. The Visigoths had embarked on a forceable conversion of the Jews. Thus the Jews of Spain and the Jews/Berbers/Arabs of Africa were indeed allies.

Here is a link

Judaic/Berber Participation in the Islamic Conquest of Southern Iberia

"The converted Jews and Berbers became a significant part of the Arab forces which invaded Iberia. The commander of the joint Berber/Arab army which crossed the strait between Africa and Europe to conquer Spain in 711 CE was a Judeo/Berber convert said to have been one of the sons of Queen Kahena. His Arab name, Jibral-an-Tarik, became transcribed into the name of the fortress, Gibraltar, and the rock is referred to as Tarik’s rock.

Many African Jews entered conversion pragmatically, secretly continuing their faith as did the Marranos of a later period. The Iberian Jews consequently collaborated fully with the invaders. The pragmatism of the converted Jews proved advantageous to both the Arabs and the Iberian Jews. The Arabs were dependant on both the Berber convertees and the Iberian Jews for a successful invasion and thereafter for maintaining their hegemony over the conquered region of Iberia.

Arab chroniclers record that the conquerors entrusted the garrisoning of such important cities as Elvira, Seville, and Cordoba to the Jews while the invaders pressed on in hot pursuit of the fleeing Christian forces. One chronicler informs us that Malaga, which had no Jews, could not be garrisoned because no Jews resided in the city and the Christians had all fled!

The gates to the strategic city of Toledo were opened by Jews on a Palm Sunday when the Christians were attending church services. The imminence of the Arab attack had been anticipated, for the Visigothan grandees had already fled the city, and the archbishop had made tracks all the way to Rome.

The Berber/Arab successes in Iberia were made possible only by the assistance and collaboration of both the Sephardim and the formerly Berber Jews. Once empowered, the primitive Berbers and Arabs, dependant on the industrial and commercial sagacity of the Jews for the continuation and growth of their societies and economies, instituted a period of tolerance. The Arabs absorbed the scholarly attributes of an advanced civilization. Many of the "Arab" philosophers, poets, mathematicians and scientists were converted Jews, or descendants of converted Jews. A new enlightened era for both Arabs and Jews was born.

Jews regained the right to practice their faith and the Jewish populations of North African towns soon burgeoned with new, vibrant Jewish communities. "