Holland, a year after van Gogh

[Mefistofeles]

quote:
.) I do not believe that it is right to riot, burn nearly a 1,000 vehicle and torch several buildings. (Unless I have missed some news, they have not as yet torched the city.).

Well if you thought it was wrong why didn't you come out and say so sooner?

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: nemoComputing
I was only pointing out that overall the Europeans have a poor record of integrating in outsiders.

As opposed to the US where Ghettos and cultural enclaves such as 'Chinatowns' are entirely unknown...

[Mefistofeles]

quote:
As opposed to the US where Ghettos and cultural enclaves such as 'Chinatowns' are entirely unknown...

People can walk freely in Chinatown without fear of being attacked solely on the basis of their race.

BBC report on racial violence

Here is an illumanating quote from the article.

quote:
Last year more than 600 racist incidents were logged by Oldham police and in 60% of them the victims were white.

In my country people regardless of their race can walk down the streets of most predominantly immigrant areas without fear of violence solely on the basis of their race.  

In my country a man regardless of his race can walk down the street of any immigrant community whether it be Chinatown, Koreatown or Arab Detroit and not have fear attack because of his race.  So in this respect America is by far and away more advanced than Europe.

In my country immigrants who looked upon with antipathy in Europe are backbone of our society.  Americans of arab decent in Detroit have revitalized parts of that city and made it a better place.  

Ethnic arabs revive local community

In fact Arab Americans have incomes that are higher than the national average

quote:
Median income for Arab American households in 1999 was $47,000 compared with $42,000 for all households in the United States.

As an American I have admit there are ALOT of bad things about this country but the country as a whole truly is a land of oppurtunity for many immigrant groups who come here.

Not only is this success prevelant with arabs but Asians in the United States earn more than whites .

You are right we don't have equality in America we have an environment that is so fair that immigrant groups who come here can actually do better than native whites through hard work and education!

[Fontaine]

But when you enter the US as an immigrant are there not many rules like that you must have a job already or allot of cash? I am sure it's not like US welcomes anyone. Allot of immigrants came in europe because their lifes where in danger like in Iran or Iraq or from yugoslavia and many immigrants for the cheap jobs ofcourse which whites don't want.
I guess the US got those aswell.... except from iran or iraq etc.

And it went very fast. 40.000 each year in holland for example (we got 16 million people).
I remember that we had a chinese kid in my class (20 years ago) and he was very special and the only foreigner kid.
These days when you look at the average class/school about 30-40% is foreigner.

So allot has changed in a very short time-line.
Though I think we do ok.

As long everyone stays cool that is and not think or do crazy things when another Theo gets killed.

[Mefistofeles]

quote:
But when you enter the US as an immigrant are there not many rules like that you must have a job already or allot of cash?

Hell no!  We have some of the weirdest and strangest immigration rules in the world.  People with family in the United States have priority.  Its sort of like chain migration.  

Actually since and before 9-11 we have had problems bringing in people with skills into the United States because of all the red tape and bureaucracy.   This is actually considered a major problem in the US corporate community.

We even have an immigration lottery that brings people in through a random drawing!

Like you people who  fear persecution from certain states are given priority.  For example Cubans are granted asylum almost automatically.  We have bad relations with Cuba.

quote:
As long everyone stays cool that is and not think or do crazy things when another Theo gets killed

Using my most guttural American English:its too late for that pal.   Things are already crazy and you simply have to deal with it.

I think the French government must act decisively any action now no matter how harsh will probably save countless lives later.  The longer this goes on the more France will suffer.  

Having actually spent a few days in France, I feel entitled to make one comment about French society.   It was strange but whenever I encountered a "white" Frenchman they always spoke some English.  Whether that person was taxi driver or police officier I could ask for directions and get specific information.  

These people were Parisians who even considered rude by French standards.

Most of the North Africans or sub saharan Africans I met spoke no English.  

Although I shouldn't judge people by the how they speak a foreign language(English) my experiences in Europe have taught me that the higher you are on the socio economic scale the better your English skills.  

I think limited English probably does limit economic oppurtunities for immigrants in France in particular and many people in Europe in general.

[Fontaine]

I have had a few holidays in france and I always hated it that almost no white! frenchmen could speak english.
Even when buying your ski tickets you would expect they should hire people who can speak english but no change.
I even was stolen from my wallet once and when I tried to tell the police what happened not 1 in the police station could speak english :S

Yes it's bad when foreigners can't speak the language in the country they are. But foreigners in Holland get free school to be sure they can speak dutch and I don't believe things would go crazy as in france/paris right now.

But sure you never know. A fire can spread just because it can.

[Texmaster]

quote:
Originally posted by: nemoComputing
TM:
Yes but the Torah does not have the violent language the Qur'an has even 1/10th the strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never read the Koran, but even if it is more violent than the Old Testament, which I have read a few times, I think that it is quite a leap to assume that it is a significant causal factor in  the current situation.  While what we read about the riots is rather framentary and incomplete, I haven't read anything so far indicating that religion is playing a large role in the rioting; and unless I do,  I am not going to jump to that conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nemo

Its not jumping to any conclusion.   There are other poor immigrant areas in France that are not rioting that are not heavily populated by Muslims.

These Muslim districts are so violent and unsafe many French police will not patrol them.

Just this morning on NPR, a prominent Muslim cleric in France said these riots are justified because police don't respect the youth of these neighborhoods.   That mentality is what allows these riots to continue.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is something along the lines of if the Jews, who have never posed a threat to Europe in terms of conquest (but did pose a theological problem), had such a difficult time being accepted, then it is not unreasonable that a Muslim population in Europe would also have a very difficult time.  

The Jewish populations in Europe were not violent nor did their holy literature dictate for them to be violent towards others who are not Jews.   The same cannot be said of the Qur'an.

quote:
In terms of history, I highly recommend The Crusades.  This DVD, aside from being very entertaining, gives one an appreciation of the animosity between Chritianity and Islam.  Europe has a history of xenophobia and I would argue that this plays a role here, though I am certainly not arguing that this is the only or even primary cause of the current situation.  As I said, the situation is complicated.  But an understanding of the Crusades does give one an understanding of how once again (relative to the Jews) European Christianity whipped the populace into a hatred of a people for no particularly good reason and why there is historical enmity between the two people.

To fully understand the Crusades one must acknowledge the 450 years of raping and pillaging of Jewish and Christian temples and churches  prior to the Crusades.

The very design of the Muslim church was a Christian Orthadox church violently taken by early Muslims and converted.  

quote:
As you mentioned the Koran again, my opinion is that religious leaders, not scripture, start religious conflict.  For example, was the Inquisition caused by scripture, or by the Catholic Church?  But as I mentioned earlier, I believe it is way too simple to explain the current situation as a religious one
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just hit on the enormous difference between Christian abuse and Muslim abuse.

Christian teachings cannot justify the inquisition.   Muslims can easily justify their violent behavior by quoting the Qur'an.   In fact, the Qur'an directs Muslims to fight non believers whenever possible unless of course they pay the jizya tax, a tax Muslims can accept from non believers if they wish to live in peace with Muslims.

Mohammad began his religion by attacking his home city of Mecca and beheading his uncle who refused to convert.

quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the insularity of the Arab and North African communities plays a role, I do not deny.  Neither do I deny that their traditional attitude towards women creates friction.  Nor do I deny that they may have a way different work ethic (or not, how about a couple of glasses of wine during a long lunch?).  Also, the high birth rate amongst this population also may contribute to French fear (which would be kinda ironic given that France provides significant financial reward for large families).  But, the Koran provides an insufficient explanation for this.  

Once again, if we look at history, the Islamic world was at one time a very open world, full of academic endeavor and great art.  In fact, one can argue that it was the Crusades followed by the even more brutal Mongol invasion that destroyed Islamic high culture.

In this enlightened ara that you are quoting was the most aggressive and oppressive movmeent Muslims ever waged on Christians and Jews.

The caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab ruled from 634 to 644 forced this pact with Christians. The Christians vowed under this pact:

We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that need restoration nor use any of them for the purpose that need restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.

This of course allow Muslims to seize any church whenever they wanted.

It continues:


We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night....Those Muslims who come as guests will enjoy boarding and food for three days

This agreement also mandates a number of humiliating regulations to make sure that the dhimmis "feel themselves subdued" in accordance with Qur'an 9:29

The Christians also promised:

We will not...prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam if thet choose to do so. We will respect Muslims more from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. WE will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames, and title names, or ride in saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons....We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear our belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad in London 2002 wrote that even though there was no caliph in the Islamic world today, that didn't mean Muslims could simply kill unbelievers. He affirmed that the must still be offered the choice to live subject to the Muslims "We cannot simply say that because we have no Khilafah we can just go ahead and kill ever non-Muslim rather, we must still fulfill their Dhimmah"

And this position is considered benign. So basically what he is saying is that Muslims cannot kill non Muslims outright without offering for them to live subjugated to Muslims.

quote:
My point is that it was the same Koran when the Islamic world preserved Western knowledge through the Dark Ages as it is today.  And that therefore, the Koran cannot be blamed.

And while they preserved it as you say, they raped Christian and Jewish holy sites, sacked Constantinople, and took over the churches focing those to convert to Islam or die.

quote:
From a personal perspective, I do take note that my maternal ancestors lived under the Islamic Moors.  My understanding is that although the Jews were considered second class citizens, they were free to practice their religion and in exchange for paying certain taxes were protected by the Moors.  This was quite an improvment over living under Christian rule both before and after (though there were issues with fundamentalits towards the end of Muslim control).

The Jews thrived under Islamic rule and that  period is often referred to as a golden age.  The Koran was the same Koran then as it is today.

Sixty three percent of the Jewish population of Europe died during the Holocaust.  Europe was then as it is now overwhelmingly Christian, particularly Western Europe.  The New Testament was the same then as it is now.

Once again, my point is that religious scripture is an insufficient explanation for religious intolerance and hatred.  

Allow me to present you a different outlook on Muslim history.

As always, we start with the facts. There are over 100 verses in the Koran that exhort believers to wage johad angainst non believers. Below are just a small exmaple of those statemenets:

O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and wage jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrities and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed Qur'an 9:73

The term "strive hard" in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the word johad. This striving was to be done on the battlefield.

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and , when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly Qur'a 47:4

O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about , and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with whose who fear Him Qur'an 9:123

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocirties and deal rigorouslty with them. Hell shall be their home, an evil fate Qur'an 9:73

Those who fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan Qur'an 4:76

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye may find them and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, Merciful! Qur'an 9:5

The "poor due" in this verse is zakat, which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and regulates tithes. So this verse is saying only if the "idolaters" become Muslims, leave them alone.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing sibmission and feel themselves subdued Qu'ran 9:29

Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive with might and main the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause with their gods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of allah: they are the people who will achieve salvation Qur'an 9:19-20

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods: for theirs is the garden (of Paradise) they fight in His cause and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth Qur'an 9:111

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah Qu'ran 2:190-193

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We subsitute something better or silmilar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? Qu'ran 2:106

According to this verse, the violent verses of the ninth sura including the Verse of the Sword 9:5 obrogate the peacful verses because they were revealved later in Mohammad's prophetic career. In fact, most Muislim authorities agree with the ninth sura was the very last section of the Qur'an to be revealed.

And of course the Verse of the Sword states Slay the unbelievers wherever you may find them Qur'an 9:5

Now that your own quotes have been overwhelmingly out numbered by the jihad quotes I've provided, and the explanation given how the more peacfuil quotes are overwritten by the more violent ones, lets talk about how Bin Laden uses the Koran to justify his attacks.

He quotes suras 3:145: 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72 and of course the notorious "Verse of the Sword" sura 9:5. In 2003, on the first day of Muslim holy celebration Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, he began a sermon:

Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to His servant and Messenger (Mohammad) in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.

When Jews and Chrsitians read their holy texts, they simply don't interpret the passages cited exhoring them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition. The jihad passages in the Qur'an are anything but a dead letter. In Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere, a key recruting ground of jihad terrorist groups is the Islamic school: The students learn that they must wage jihad warfare and then these groups give them the opportunity.

In one key hadith, Muhammad delineates three choices that Muslims are to offer non Muslims:

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting them.... If they refuse to accpt Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accpe it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Lets look at a poll taken after the attacks in England

In it, One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

However, nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".

link

quote:
Muslims make up about 8% of France's population (that's right, one in twelve residents of France is a Muslim).  How it got there is pretty much besides the point at this point.  France and its Muslim population are going to have to figure it out.  Sure, you can blame it all on letting the Muslims in, for if they were not there, there would be no rioting.  Unfortunately, this does zippo to help resolve the problem.  

If you deny the orgin of the problem as many do, you cannot possibly fix the problem.

quote:
It makes about as much sense as saying there would have been no Holocaust had there been no Jews in Europe, which would be very ironic as it was the Europeans who kicked the Jews out of their homeland and forced the Jews to flee to among other places, Europe (the Romans, who were Europeans, in about CE 130).  Isn't it strange that in a very real way Europe itself created the 'Jewish problem'?

Once again, the Jews were not violent and their teachings did not separate themselves from others through violence or tax.

quote:
The relationship and hatred between European Christianity and Islam has a long history that cannot be unilaterally blamed on the Muslims or the Koran.  Europe has a long history of xenophobia.  My primary point is that French nativism undoubtedly plays A role in the current situation, which has been festering for quite a while.  

If the xenophobia was a prevelant as you claim then europe would never have let these people migrate in the first place so that argument is a non starter.

And to blame everything on Muslims would be absurd.  However, it would be just as absurd to deny the role of the Islamic relgion plays in this rebellion.

While France can take some blame for the job problems in these neighborhoods, only the Qur'an justifies this kind of violent rebellion against non believers.

quote:
There is a price to be paid for Empire.  Britain has gone through it and still is. Now, France is going through it.  Many of the Muslims now living in France lived in France's colonies.  Many, likley most, are children/decendents of those who immigrated from those colonies.  If France had not built that empire, there would probably be far fewer Muslims in France.  Once again, this does little to solve the current problem.

I guess that what bothers me is that everyone seems to be focusing on the cause of the problem, instead of the solution.  While examining causes can often help solve a problem, in this case, it seems to be a blame game that contributes little to a solution.

What I fear is that a knee jerk equating of the riots to Islamic terrorism and ascribing the exact same roots to both problems has the potential to make the situation in France far far worse than it need be.  Similarly, making this out to be a primarily religious problem is a gross oversimplification that contributes nothing to addressing the situation.  

The problems in the French ghettos has been simmering for a very long time and the lid blew.  It isn't clear to me that either 'side' did much to slow or stop the simmering.  Hopefully, this unfortunate blow-up will cause all to wake up and address the underlying issueS.  

This is about the lack of integration of an immigrant population, not about Islam.  That the immigrants were not Christian probably made the situation worse, but that is not the same as saying that it has to do with the immigrant population being Muslim.

I completely disagree.   People have to want to assimilate, they have to want to merge in a new society.   Almost everything their relgion teaches is converting others or openly fighting those who do not.   If anything shows us how Muslims refuse to assimilate would be the poll in England after the bombings.   These people are not in the poor dwellings France has yet the animosity and hatred for a non Muslim government is painfully displayed.

And in the Sudan where the Muslims are in the upperclasses and the Chirstians are in the lower classes, it is once again the Muslims who are on the offensive.

Muslim nations right now openly display their animosity and intolerance for non believers.  Coptics in Egypt are openly hunted and killed by Muslims without any reprisal from the government.

I think it is extremely insulting for you to pass over the Muslim nations vs Christian nations and look at the treatement of the religious minorities.   France for all its flaws, treats its Mulsim minority population FAR better than any Muslim nation on the planet treats its Christian and Jewish minority populations.

[nemoComputing]

TexMaster, thank you for the obvious effort you put into your response.  It is also nice to see a long posting other than my own:>

I have no idea as to how the design of Mosques came about.  You may well be right here.

When you said, "Christian teachings cannot justfiy the Inquisition," I take it that you meant Christian scripture cannot be used to justify the Inquisition, for it was Christian teaching from the Church of Rome that indeed justified the Inquisition.  As I have never read the New Testament, I have no ability to argue with the contention that Christian scripture could not have been used to justify the Inquisition and am willing to assume that this is indeed the case.

Thus, the Inquisition does show that not all religious extremism is scripture based.  And from what I know of history, non-scripture based extremism can be just as destructive as scripture based extremism.  

A lot of the Old Testament is pretty extreme (eye tooth stuff and the like), yet as you pointed out there isn't much history of Jewish extremism in the Common Era. (There has been some lately.  For example using scripture to justify the taking of land.)  Part of this may be due to the fact that the Jews were in no position to impose much of anything on anyone (including taxes), but I ascribe it to the Talmud and later rabbinical debate and guidance over the meaning of the Old Testament that minimized the literal interpretation of extreme passages.

What I believe you ascribe to Islam and Muslims I would ascribe to Islamic fundamentalism.  And given the quotes of the Koran you presented, Islamic fundamentalism is indeed a very dangerous thing.  But at the same time, there are many many non-fundamentalist Muslims who have pretty much interpreted away these rants about infidels in a manner similar to how Judaism let go of some of the seemingly vile and violent passages of the Old Testament.

It might be the case that Islam does not have the interpetive tradition to overcome some of its scripture.  But I do not know enough here to be fully confident one way or the other.  But I will say that the decentralized nature of Islam and the ability of many many different Imams to issue Fatwahs means that the spread of extremism/fundamentalism within Islam can be fast and furious.

If there is one point I would like to emphasize in this post, it is that your characterization of Muslims may well apply to Islamic extremists/fundalmentalists but should not be broadly ascribed to all of Islam or all Muslims.  And that it might make sense for you to to speak of Islamic extremists, radical muslims or Islamic fundamentalists instead.

Personally, I don't distinguish too much between scripture based religious extremism (fundamentalism) and non scripture based extremism - bad behavior is bad behavior.

I read through the article you linked to.  What I took from the article is that there is a serious amount of extremism in Britain's Muslim population, but that a majority of them are not extremists.  I would submit that painting all Muslims with the brush of extremism does more to move the extremist agenda forward than it does much of anything else.

Now, onto the Muslim treatment of Christians after the Arab conquest of Palestine.  There are several versions of the Pact/Covenant of Umar (8th century).  I have seen it used to prove oppresion of Christians and I have seen it used to claim the charity of Islamic rule.  Many historians believe that the Pact of Umar was actually codified a hundred years later and ascribed to Umar to increase its legitimacy.  Some believe that it was based upon the rules that governed the lives of Jews in Persia.

There is no doubt that the Christians of Palestine were subjugated by the Islamic conquerers.  The Christians had to convert or pay the Jizya or they were in really deep doo.  The prohibition against new houses of worship was not always enforced and new houses of worship were sometimes allowed under the pact, though I do not know if this was the case in Palestine.

But, until the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1109 by caliph Hakim and the imposition of new restrictions, Islamic rule didn't interrupt Christian pilgramage, existing monestaries, or destroy Christian communities.  The same applies to the Jews who remained after the Roman explusion or who returned afterwards.  They were both people of the book, dhimmis.  I believe the restrictions imposed by caliph Hakim, were lifted upon his death in 1021.

In 1058, the Christians were permitted to rebuild the church.  This was part of a peace treaty with Byzantium.  

Until 1009, the deal that the Christians received from the Muslims wasn't too bad compared to many vanquished people in that day and age.  In fact, it could be argued that it was rather progressive compared to the behavior of other conquerers.

There was a period between 1071 and 1098 when things were particularly bad.  The Turks captured Jerusalem and cruely treat its Christians.  The Egyptians recaptured Jerusalem in 1098.  The Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 and established several small Christian states in the area.  I think it is an exaggeration to speak of 450 years of rape and pillage.

Let us take a look at the lives of Christians in Jerusalem.  The Islamic rulers gave them enough freedom to live their lives, raise their families and practice their faith.  Even after 1009, they did not brutally murder the Christian population.

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, they brutally murdered nearly all its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants - men and women, young and old.  We know this from the writings of Crusaders.  The Islamic rulers of Jerusalem subjugated its Christians, but they did not butcher them.  

I am not clear on the fate of Jerusalem's Christians.  Some sources speak of the Crusaders killiing the entire population of the city and some speak of them killing just the Jews and Muslims.  The account that makes the most sense relative to these differing accounts is that the governor of Jerusalem expelled its Christians shortly before the Crusaders attacked.  Any Christians who may have remained behind were doomed as they would then be killed by the Crusaders.

When Saladin retook Jerusalem, he did not exact revenge.

In any event, there seems to be no doubt that on the way to Jerusalem, the Crusaders murdered nearly the entire population of Antioch, including its Chrstians.

The native Christians initially welcomed the Crusaders as saviors.  It didn't take long for many native Christians to realize that the Crusaders were nuts and begin to opppose them.

The Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople a couple of centuries before it fell to the Ottomans in the 15th century.  It was recaptured from the Roman Catholic Church a bit over a half century later.  They are still arguing about returning religious artifacts that were stolen/taken.  When did Islamic armies sack Constantinople?  When they took over, the Ottoman Sultan let the Eastern Orthodox continue practicing.

The second great irony of the Crusades is that Constantinople's request for a modest amount of help from  from their western bretheren resulted in the sacking of Constantinople by their western bretheren.  (The first is killing so many Christians while on a mission to make the Holy Land safe for Christians.)  

It is not that that Muslim empires, particularly later ones, were free of brutality.  One only has to look at the Aremenian genocide.  

It is a weird world.  The Crusaders wipe out the Christian population of Antioch.  The Crusaders brutally murder Jerusalem's Muslims and Jews.  The Crusaders sack Constantinople.  The Crusaders commit countless other acts of barbarity.  But somehow, centuries later, many villify Muslims for the treatment of Christians in the Holy Land and the sacking of Constantinople.  The perception of the Muslims of the time being barbarians is an artifact/remnant of Roman Catholic propaganda that ignores the behavior of the Crusaders themselves.  The Cathars would have been better off in Palestine than they were in the south of France.

For what it is worth, the brutality of the Mongols makes the Crusaders look like choir boys.

I stick by my primary point, there is plenty of brutality to go around and the Crusades were a a barbarian invasion of a more advanced civilization that helped set the tone for how Arab Muslims view Christian Europe with suspicion.  Did I mention the episodes of cannibalism during the Crusades?  Nothing leaves a better impression than eating those you have killed on the field of battle and consuming some women and children while you are at it.

That Muslim leaders throughout subsequent history used the Crusades to foment hatred of Christians is beyond doubt.  But the Crusaders gave them lots of good material to work with.  And I have no doubt that from a historical perspective, the Crusaders were more barbaric thant the Muslims with whom they did battle.  

The Crusades also institutionalized anti-semitism in Europe and marked the beginning of a near miilenium of viscious persection of the Jews that culminated in the Holocaust.  The first millenium was a cakewalk in comparison.  Though the word pogrom is a Russian word, the Crusades intiated the pattern of large scale, violent attacks on Jewish communities - why not kill the infidels you know while on the way to kill the ones you dont?

I am sorry, but I could give a hoot about scripture - it is behaviour by which I judge.  I have particular disdain for religious leaders and the powerful who advocate atrocities and mislead the faithful into executing these atrocities.  Hmm, why does this all sound so familiar and modern?

I am not trying to insult anyone, I am just calling it the way I see it.

[nemoComputing]

Lots of edits to the immediately above post.  Sorry about that if you read it soon after I posted it.  Calling it quits on further editing.

I originally wrote from memory, but since it has been five years or so since I have looked into the Crusades, decided that I should check my memory - hence the extensive edits.

Many sources of info on the Crusades bear either a Christian or Muslim view on it.  Many Western sources put a Christian slant on things.  It is hard to figure out historical reality.

And I have to admit that in my view, until the latter half of the 20th century, the Catholic Church has instigated untold evil upon the world.  This is not a comment on idividual Catholics - it is a comment on the Catholic Church as an institution.  It is certainly not a comment on Christianity in general or individual practitioners.

[Mefistofeles]

I think the Brits in this form would probably considering me "barmy" (if I'm not mistaken) for saying so but what if the cause of all this violence in France isn't racism,poverty or the unwillingness of the state to act what if its simple economics.

People in government housing and the people who run government housing have to financial incentive to keep it in tip top shape.   From what I understand many of the people rioting in France live in these public housing units.  Perhaps public housing works for the middle class in France but its obviously been a disaster for the less fortunate decendants for immigrants.

 Now if private enterprise ran these "distressed" parts of the public housing system they have an economic stake in both profits and capital gains in keeping this area nice.   Not only that but private enterprise loses economically when people are burning down cars, it lowers the value of the property and creates a bad business climate resulting in further loses.  The French government on the other hand will paid one way or another so it can afford to take relatively easy stance on the rioting.

Private enterprise would also need the authority and ability to equip people with arms to bringing the rioting under control.

[fall-apart]

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: nemoComputing

Thus, the Inquisition does show that not all religious extremism is scripture based.  And from what I know of history, non-scripture based extremism can be just as destructive as scripture based extremism.  

True but I think you would agree that non scripture based extremism is far easier to knock down that scripture based extremism found in the Qur'an.

A lot of the Old Testament is pretty extreme (eye tooth stuff and the like), yet as you pointed out there isn't much history of Jewish extremism in the Common Era. (There has been some lately.  For example using scripture to justify the taking of land.)  Part of this may be due to the fact that the Jews were in no position to impose much of anything on anyone (including taxes), but I ascribe it to the Talmud and later rabbinical debate and guidance over the meaning of the Old Testament that minimized the literal interpretation of extreme passages.

Which has not taken place in Islam.   There is no formal education required to be a cleric in Islam which helps breed this ignorance and non reform.

What I believe you ascribe to Islam and Muslims I would ascribe to Islamic fundamentalism.  And given the quotes of the Koran you presented, Islamic fundamentalism is indeed a very dangerous thing.  But at the same time, there are many many non-fundamentalist Muslims who have pretty much interpreted away these rants about infidels in a manner similar to how Judaism let go of some of the seemingly vile and violent passages of the Old Testament.

I would argue that the British poll shows the exact opposite.   Despite a fairly tolerant  and economically prosperous society, Muslims born in England were still sympathetic as a majority to the bombings.   I have no doubt there are Muslims that are moderate in their thinking but I also believe they are in the extreme minority.

It might be the case that Islam does not have the interpetive tradition to overcome some of its scripture.  But I do not know enough here to be fully confident one way or the other.  But I will say that the decentralized nature of Islam and the ability of many many different Imams to issue Fatwahs means that the spread of extremism/fundamentalism within Islam can be fast and furious.

I would agree with that theory but there is a centralized rule that once the lands are united in Islam a caliph can be appointed.   But, everyone would have to be converted to Islam.

If there is one point I would like to emphasize in this post, it is that your characterization of Muslims may well apply to Islamic extremists/fundalmentalists but should not be broadly ascribed to all of Islam or all Muslims.  And that it might make sense for you to to speak of Islamic extremists, radical muslims or Islamic fundamentalists instead.

I again point back to the poll in England to support my view that the majority of Muslims in the world today either support openly or passively Islamic terrorism.

Personally, I don't distinguish too much between scripture based religious extremism (fundamentalism) and non scripture based extremism - bad behavior is bad behavior.

But changing an idea without basis in religion is far easier to change than a written down belief in a holy text.  Would you not agree?

I read through the article you linked to.  What I took from the article is that there is a serious amount of extremism in Britain's Muslim population, but that a majority of them are not extremists.  I would submit that painting all Muslims with the brush of extremism does more to move the extremist agenda forward than it does much of anything else.

I would again argue that sympathy for extremist groups and understanding of their attacks on civilians is extreme.

Now, onto the Muslim treatment of Christians after the Arab conquest of Palestine.  There are several versions of the Pact/Covenant of Umar (8th century).  I have seen it used to prove oppresion of Christians and I have seen it used to claim the charity of Islamic rule.  Many historians believe that the Pact of Umar was actually codified a hundred years later and ascribed to Umar to increase its legitimacy.  Some believe that it was based upon the rules that governed the lives of Jews in Persia.

This treatment was not limited to Palestine or Israel but continued in other places like Constantinople which was sacked and its churches forcibly converted to Islam.

There is no doubt that the Christians of Palestine were subjugated by the Islamic conquerers.  The Christians had to convert or pay the Jizya or they were in really deep doo.  The prohibition against new houses of worship was not always enforced and new houses of worship were sometimes allowed under the pact, though I do not know if this was the case in Palestine.

It is the same in other counties as well including Egypt and modern day Turkey.
And it continues today.   That is the problem.

But, until the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1109 by caliph Hakim and the imposition of new restrictions, Islamic rule didn't interrupt Christian pilgramage, existing monestaries, or destroy Christian communities.  The same applies to the Jews who remained after the Roman explusion or who returned afterwards.  They were both people of the book, dhimmis.  I believe the restrictions imposed by caliph Hakim, were lifted upon his death in 1021.

 
Even if I agreed that the Islamic rule stopped oppressing Christians after Hakim which I do not, it still would not explain modern day oppressiveness of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries.

In 1058, the Christians were permitted to rebuild the church.  This was part of a peace treaty with Byzantium.  

Until 1009, the deal that the Christians received from the Muslims wasn't too bad compared to many vanquished people in that day and age.  In fact, it could be argued that it was rather progressive compared to the behavior of other conquerers.

That might be true but others were not following a holy book to impose their will, the Muslims did and are doing it today.

There was a period between 1071 and 1098 when things were particularly bad.  The Turks captured Jerusalem and cruely treat its Christians.  The Egyptians recaptured Jerusalem in 1098.  The Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 and established several small Christian states in the area.  I think it is an exaggeration to speak of 450 years of rape and pillage.

Oh I do not in the slightest since Islam was only in Mecca after Mohammad beheaded his uncle who was a ruler in Mecca for failing to convert to his new religion.

Islam did not grow from Spain to Egypt before the first Crusade by peaceful conversion.

Let us take a look at the lives of Christians in Jerusalem.  The Islamic rulers gave them enough freedom to live their lives, raise their families and practice their faith.  Even after 1009, they did not brutally murder the Christian population.

That is not true.   They denied their right to preach their religion outside their churches and they killed anyone who did so.   They also forced them to wear distinguishing clothes so Muslims could recognize them on the street.

I'm surprised to see you defending this treatment and trivialize paying a tax to another religion which was essentially blackmail and most importantly, commanded of Muslims in the Qur'an.

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, they brutally murdered nearly all its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants - men and women, young and old.  We know this from the writings of Crusaders.  The Islamic rulers of Jerusalem subjugated its Christians, but they did not butcher them.  

Right.  They gave them a choice, convert or die or pay a tax.   Not exactly a happy alternative.

I am not clear on the fate of Jerusalem's Christians.  Some sources speak of the Crusaders killiing the entire population of the city and some speak of them killing just the Jews and Muslims.  The account that makes the most sense relative to these differing accounts is that the governor of Jerusalem expelled its Christians shortly before the Crusaders attacked.  Any Christians who may have remained behind were doomed as they would then be killed by the Crusaders.

I am not familiar with the history of these charges so I cannot speak to them.

When Saladin retook Jerusalem, he did not exact revenge.

But he did impose horrible restrictions which made sure Christianity would only shrink and could never grow.

In any event, there seems to be no doubt that on the way to Jerusalem, the Crusaders murdered nearly the entire population of Antioch, including its Chrstians.

The native Christians initially welcomed the Crusaders as saviors.  It didn't take long for many native Christians to realize that the Crusaders were nuts and begin to opppose them

The Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople a couple of centuries before it fell to the Ottomans in the 15th century.  It was recaptured from the Roman Catholic Church a bit over a half century later.  They are still arguing about returning religious artifacts that were stolen/taken.  When did Islamic armies sack Constantinople?  When they took over, the Ottoman Sultan let the Eastern Orthodox continue practicing.



The second great irony of the Crusades is that Constantinople's request for a modest amount of help from  from their western bretheren resulted in the sacking of Constantinople by their western bretheren.  (The first is killing so many Christians while on a mission to make the Holy Land safe for Christians.)  



It is not that that Muslim empires, particularly later ones, were free of brutality.  One only has to look at the Aremenian genocide.  



It is a weird world.  The Crusaders wipe out the Christian population of Antioch.  The Crusaders brutally murder Jerusalem's Muslims and Jews.  The Crusaders sack Constantinople.  The Crusaders commit countless other acts of barbarity.  But somehow, centuries later, many villify Muslims for the treatment of Christians in the Holy Land and the sacking of Constantinople.  The perception of the Muslims of the time being barbarians is an artifact/remnant of Roman Catholic propaganda that ignores the behavior of the Crusaders themselves.  The Cathars would have been better off in Palestine than they were in the south of France.

I would invite you to read the following

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression - an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity - and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion - has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt - once the most heavily Christian areas in the world - quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders' task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."

Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

link

I stick by my primary point, there is plenty of brutality to go around and the Crusades were a a barbarian invasion of a more advanced civilization that helped set the tone for how Arab Muslims view Christian Europe with suspicion.  Did I mention the episodes of cannibalism during the Crusades?  Nothing leaves a better impression than eating those you have killed on the field of battle and consuming some women and children while you are at it.

That Muslim leaders throughout subsequent history used the Crusades to foment hatred of Christians is beyond doubt.  But the Crusaders gave them lots of good material to work with.  And I have no doubt that from a historical perspective, the Crusaders were more barbaric thant the Muslims with whom they did battle.  

The Crusades also institutionalized anti-semitism in Europe and marked the beginning of a near miilenium of viscious persection of the Jews that culminated in the Holocaust.  The first millenium was a cakewalk in comparison.  Though the word pogrom is a Russian word, the Crusades intiated the pattern of large scale, violent attacks on Jewish communities - why not kill the infidels you know while on the way to kill the ones you dont?

I completely disagree.   The Crusades were a response to over 400 years of conquering of Christian lands by brutal attacks waged by Muslims and the advances Muslims had enjoyed were actually based off European scientists and scholars.   If you like I can give you examples of this.

And testament to the differences between Muslims and Christianity is that conversation through force is only dictated in Islam and in the Qur'an.

I am sorry, but I could give a hoot about scripture - it is behaviour by which I judge.  I have particular disdain for religious leaders and the powerful who advocate atrocities and mislead the faithful into executing these atrocities.  Hmm, why does this all sound so familiar and modern?

I am not trying to insult anyone, I am just calling it the way I see it.

Then I hope you recognize the extreme difference between basing a belief off a misinterpretation  and basing a belief off a literal one.

[nemoComputing]

Originally posted by: Texmaster
True but I think you would agree that non scripture based extremism is far easier to knock down that scripture based extremism found in the Qur'an.

Yes, one would think that extremism without scriptural support would be easier to knock down.  Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the way it has worked historically.

I would argue that the British poll shows the exact opposite.   Despite a fairly tolerant  and economically prosperous society, Muslims born in England were still sympathetic as a majority to the bombings.   I have no doubt there are Muslims that are moderate in their thinking but I also believe they are in the extreme minority.

I reread the article.    I don't see how one can reach your conclusions based upon the article.  Here is the section of the article that most directly bears on the question of sympathy.

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathize with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

YouGov also asked whether or not its Muslim respondents agreed or disagreed with Tony Blair's description of the ideas and ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous".

Again, while a large majority, 58 per cent, agree with him, a substantial minority, 26 per cent, are reluctant to be so dismissive.

Am I missing something?  Are you equating the 56 percent who have an understanding of why some people might want to act this way with majority support.  It seem to me that all the other percentages refute any notion of the majority sympathizing.

I again point back to the poll in England to support my view that the majority of Muslims in the world today either support openly or passively Islamic terrorism.

The poll in England was not a global poll and thus says little to nothing about the majority of Muslims in the world today.  And as I mentioned earlier, I don't see how you are drawing your conclusions about even British Muslims from the poll.

But changing an idea without basis in religion is far easier to change than a written down belief in a holy text.  Would you not agree?

Even if I were to concede the point, as it would seem to be logical, my perspective is one of the damage done by the extremism.  As such, even conceding the premise, I feel that the evil done seems to be uncorrelated to whether the extremism was supported by scripture.

 

Even if I agreed that the Islamic rule stopped oppressing Christians after Hakim which I do not, it still would not explain modern day oppressiveness of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries.

TM, we aren't talking about modern day oppression - non sequitur.

That might be true but others were not following a holy book to impose their will, the Muslims did and are doing it today.

If a radical M&Mist were to break into my house and murder me, I would not care whether or not the writings on the M&M's told him to do it or whether one of the big M&M honchos told him to do it.  I would be dead as a result of M&Mism regardless.

As the Pope is infallible, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, the distinction you are making evaporates.  Whether the scripture supported the notion that it was OK to kill infidels during the Crusades doesn't much matter when the Pope is infallible (I guess he communes with God in some way).

Islam did not grow from Spain to Egypt before the first Crusade by peaceful conversion.

Neither did Christianity grow by peaceful means.  What is the point here?

By me:

Let us take a look at the lives of Christians in Jerusalem.  The Islamic rulers gave them enough freedom to live their lives, raise their families and practice their faith.  Even after 1009, they did not brutally murder the Christian population.

That is not true.   They denied their right to preach their religion outside their churches and they killed anyone who did so.   They also forced them to wear distinguishing clothes so Muslims could recognize them on the street.

I'm surprised to see you defending this treatment and trivialize paying a tax to another religion which was essentially blackmail and most importantly, commanded of Muslims in the Qur'an.

I have already conceded that they were not allowed to practice outside of churches.  I don't deny the subjugation of both Christians and Jews.  And while there were fundamentalist inspired brutalites committed agains Jews and Christians from time to time, it does not measure up to the long and glorious history of brutality in the name of God committed by the Roman Catholic church against people of other faiths.

If the Muslims did not offer the tax option, I would not be here today to be corresponding with you.  The choices offered Muslims and Jews during the Inquisition were conversion or death.  There was no tax option.  So, even if the Christian choices were not dictated by scripture (though Papal infallibility muddies the notion), and the Muslim choices were, it matters little to the Muslims and Jews who were murdered during the Inquisition for refusing to convert.

The choices offered the Muslim and Jewish residents of Jerusalem were death or death.  The choices offered the Muslim, Jewish and Christian residents of Antioch were death or death.  The choices offered to the victims of Porgroms were death or death.  The choices offered the victims of the Holocaust, which was perpetuated by Christians, were death or death. If I were to Google around a bit, I suspect that I could come up with a lot more examples of Christians offering the vanquished the choice of death or death, or the choice of conversion or death.  I am not going to give them (the Catholic Church) a pass just because their scripture didn't explicitly condone their actions, particularly when they were acting in the name of God.

The tax sucked.  Not being able to pray outside of Church sucked.  Wearing identifying clothing sucked.  And so on and so forth.  These are the Islamic laws that both people of the book had to live under.  For a long time, Jews living in Christian Europe had to wear yellow cones on their head.  So, can we drop the identifying clothing thing as it was not unique to Islam?  In any event, the tax choice and it accompanying restrictions were better than the convert or death choice, and the death or death choice.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that a thinking Jew would conclude that on balance and over the course of history, Christianity (the Catholic Church) was far more barbarous, cruel and intolerant than Islam.

I read the article you inserted.  Even before checking to see the source, its very language made it somewhat suspect in my mind.

Yes, the Muslims were beginning to threaten Christendom.  Byzantium requested aid from Urban II in fight them.  It did not request help in liberating Jerusalem.  All empires fight wars to establish and expand the empire, and that includes Christendom.  It is not a question of warring for all empires warred, but rather a question of how the vanquished were treated.  To me, it is pretty clear that if you compare the behavior of the Catholic armies to that of the Islamic armies, the Catholics were by far the more brutal of the two during that time period.

I could spend hours pointing out the oversimplifications and partial truths in the article, but am not going to.

Wherever the truth lays, it does not lie within this article.

Then I hope you recognize the extreme difference between basing a belief off a misinterpretation and basing a belief off a literal one.

I recognize a theoretical difference that unfortunately is not born out by history.

Christendom was just coming out of the Dark Ages during the 11th century.  Islam was about a third of the way through its golden age.  At this time, the Islamic world was relatively tolerant and civilized in comparison to Christendom.  This applies to their society, academics, art and the conduct of war.  Byzantium was also far more civilized than European Christendom at this time

The Muslim golden age lasted till around 1500.  You can argue that the Islamic Arab world is today in its own dark age.  But this says nothing about how things were in the 11th century.

I for one find it hard to avoid the conclusion that imperfect as Islamic tolerance was historically, it was far less intolerant of other faiths than Christianity has been historically (by Christianity in this historic context, I am primarily refering to the Roman Catholic church).

The modern enmity between Jews and Arab Muslims is exactly that, a modern enmity that did not take form until the 20th century.  When my mother was born in  1929, there were about 50,000 Jews in Cairo.  Today, I believe the number is 50 or 500.  Most of the modern enmity revolves around Israel and did not take form until the Zionist movement was in full swing.

Why was there a Zionist movement?  Why did the Jews after nearly 2,000 years of trying to live in Europe decide that they had to have a state of their own?  I can assure you that it had nothing to do with Islamic brutality and intolerance.  (FYI, I am not a Zionist in that I don't see what the Palestinians did that justified taking their land and giving it to a people that had been expelled 1,800 years earlier by European conquerers.  I am a Zionist in that I believe the Jewish people needed a place to feel safe in.  I just believe that the modern Israeli state should have been carved out of Europe, not Palestine).

Chrisitian Europe imposed discriminitory laws on the Jews.  Amongst these were the requirement to wear distinctive clothing and restricting them to live in ghettos.  The practice of Judaism was restricted.  There were certain countries they were not allowed to enter.  They were forced to take humiliating oaths.   And so on and so forth.

The Muslims had no monopoly on subjugating those of other faiths.  The Jews were emancipated from these European laws in the 19th and 20th centuries.  See here for further detail.  The Jews posed no military threat to Christian Europe.  The Jews tried to fit in (see here ).

So, taking another tact, I would claim that the Muslims treated the Christians no worse than European Christianity treated the Jews and that the Muslims treated the Jews no worse than European Christianity treated the Jews.  I don't see how one can condemn historical Islam for religious intolerance without also condemning Christian Europe.  I don't see how one can make the claim that historical Islam was more brutal and inhuman than historical European Christianity.

P.S. While I am enjoying corresponding with TM, I am curious as to whether anyone besides TM and myself is following our correspondence?

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: nemoComputing

Yes, one would think that extremism without scriptural support would be easier to knock down.  Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the way it has worked historically.

I completely disagree.  The Crusades have been over for well over 600 years and in Western countries there are little if any restrictions on Muslims displaying or sharing their faith.
The same cannot be said about Muslim countries and their Christian and Jewish minorities  and I believe the fact that it is built into their holy text on how to treat non believers is the reason the persecution continues.

I would argue that the British poll shows the exact opposite.   Despite a fairly tolerant  and economically prosperous society, Muslims born in England were still sympathetic as a majority to the bombings.   I have no doubt there are Muslims that are moderate in their thinking but I also believe they are in the extreme minority.
I reread the article.    I don't see how one can reach your conclusions based upon the article.  Here is the section of the article that most directly bears on the question of sympathy.
YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

Am I missing something?  Are you equating the 56 percent who have an understanding of why some people might want to act this way with majority support.  It seem to me that all the other percentages refute any notion of the majority sympathizing.

Yes I believe you are missing something

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathize with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

This is an extremely important point.

Understanding killing civilians is sympathizing with the men who killed them.   I see that as extremely telling of the religious justification of attacking non believers in the Qur'an.

The poll in England was not a global poll and thus says little to nothing about the majority of Muslims in the world today.  And as I mentioned earlier, I don't see how you are drawing your conclusions about even British Muslims from the poll.

My answer to your question about the British poll is above.

If you can find me one poll where a Muslim country has a favorable view of any Christian country, I will at least concede it is possible.

Take a look at this:

This poll focuses on western countries with Muslim populations.  Only 2 are under the majority for not wanting an increase in Islamic identity and once again, I will point to the Qur'an as evidence of where this separatist thinking comes from.



And here is another.  Pay close attention to the unfavorable views of people in Muslim countries and their views towards Christians and Jews



In each one on an overall basis, more Muslims have unfavorable views towards other religions than Jews or Christians.   And once again, I point back to the Qur'an as the reason for this view.

Even if I were to concede the point, as it would seem to be logical, my perspective is one of the damage done by the extremism.  As such, even conceding the premise, I feel that the evil done seems to be uncorrelated to whether the extremism was supported by scripture.

I have given you evidence up to this point that contradicts that claim.

I have also given you many examples of modern day atrocities committed against Christians and Jews but I have yet to see you produce a modern Christian or Jewish Jihad group with any equal fervor.

After 9/11, only one or two Muslims were actually killed and the number of complaints was under 20 in the US.   Do you think you would find the same of Christians in Muslim countries if a Christian terrorist group bombed their cities?  Be honest.

TM, we aren't talking about modern day oppression - non sequitur.

Not quite.   You made the claim that Muslims had ended their oppression of Christians and Jews and I was trying to show you were that theory falls flat.

If a radical M&Mist were to break into my house and murder me, I would not care whether or not the writings on the M&M's told him to do it or whether one of the big M&M honchos told him to do it.  I would be dead as a result of M&Mism regardless.

And if you did not understand the reason for that attack, then you would be dooming others to meet the same fate in the future.

As the Pope is infallible, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, the distinction you are making evaporates.  Whether the scripture supported the notion that it was OK to kill infidels during the Crusades doesn't much matter when the Pope is infallible (I guess he communes with God in some way).

The only time a Pope is infallible is when he is speaking Ex Cathedra.   I know because I missed it on my theology test in high school.  And it was never used to start a Crusade or any other violence against other religions so your point is mute.

However, the Qur'an does teach that it is Allah's will that Muslims fight non believers.

Neither did Christianity grow by peaceful means.  What is the point here?

I would like to see the evidence that shows Christians took over cities and subjugated other religions for its own as Islam did.

I have already conceded that they were not allowed to practice outside of churches.  I don't deny the subjugation of both Christians and Jews.  And while there were fundamentalist inspired brutalites committed agains Jews and Christians from time to time, it does not measure up to the long and glorious history of brutality in the name of God committed by the Roman Catholic church against people of other faiths.

Do you have any evidence to support the theory that Christianity was as brutal and non forgiving as you are making it out to be?

Once again, there has been virtually no oppression of any Muslim group for over 600 years by Christians as a whole yet Christians and Jews are still oppressed daily in Muslim countries.

Unless you are claiming the tolerance in Christian and Muslim countries for other religions is the same, there is no evidence to support your theory that Christians throughout history were more brutal than Muslims.   In fact it is quite the reverse and once again, the key difference is the holy texts and their teachings.

If the Muslims did not offer the tax option, I would not be here today to be corresponding with you.  The choices offered Muslims and Jews during the Inquisition were conversion or death.  There was no tax option.  So, even if the Christian choices were not dictated by scripture (though Papal infallibility muddies the notion), and the Muslim choices were, it matters little to the Muslims and Jews who were murdered during the Inquisition for refusing to convert.

The choices offered the Muslim and Jewish residents of Jerusalem were death or death.  The choices offered the Muslim, Jewish and Christian residents of Antioch were death or death.  The choices offered to the victims of Porgroms were death or death.  The choices offered the victims of the Holocaust, which was perpetuated by Christians, were death or death. If I were to Google around a bit, I suspect that I could come up with a lot more examples of Christians offering the vanquished the choice of death or death, or the choice of conversion or death.  I am not going to give them (the Catholic Church) a pass just because their scripture didn't explicitly condone their actions, particularly when they were acting in the name of God.

You cannot take one example of Christian oppression and think it covers all Muslim oppressions that continue today.   The difference between then and now is that Christians are ashamed of what they did.   I see little evidence of the same in Muslim dominated countries especially considering that it continues even today.

And the Holocaust example is pointless since Hitler killed over one million Christians as well for displaying their faith.   Hitler was not a Christian nor did he profess any Christian heritage.  And Stalin killed over 7 million Christians.

Yes the inquisition did force some to make that choice but you disregard completely the history of Muslim dominance when you do not take into account that for hundreds of years and some even today continue to force that same directorate.

The tax sucked.  Not being able to pray outside of Church sucked.  Wearing identifying clothing sucked.  And so on and so forth.  These are the Islamic laws that both people of the book had to live under.  For a long time, Jews living in Christian Europe had to wear yellow cones on their head.  So, can we drop the identifying clothing thing as it was not unique to Islam?  In any event, the tax choice and it accompanying restrictions were better than the convert or death choice, and the death or death choice.

You act as if no one was even killed when Muslims took over when nothing could be further from the truth.   You only speak to after they took over.    I do not know of any history you speak of where in Christian dominated countries, people who did not follow Christianity were hunted down as a whole and murdered.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that a thinking Jew would conclude that on balance and over the course of history, Christianity (the Catholic Church) was far more barbarous, cruel and intolerant than Islam.

Absolutely and completely wrong.   Once again, I challenge you to prove your theory of Christian oppression since the Crusades.   I have given you countless examples of Muslim oppression that continue to this day.   You cherry pick the Crusades and the Inquisition and then disregard the growth and spread of Islam over 1800 years and its continuing oppression today.

I read the article you inserted.  Even before checking to see the source, its very language made it somewhat suspect in my mind.

I'm sorry you were so close-minded about it.

Yes, the Muslims were beginning to threaten Christendom.  Byzantium requested aid from Urban II in fight them.  It did not request help in liberating Jerusalem.  All empires fight wars to establish and expand the empire, and that includes Christendom.  It is not a question of warring for all empires warred, but rather a question of how the vanquished were treated.  To me, it is pretty clear that if you compare the behavior of the Catholic armies to that of the Islamic armies, the Catholics were by far the more brutal of the two during that time period.

So when Muslims expand, conquer and murder, its in the name of expanding the empire and is excused but when Christians fight to take back land that was theirs, its barbaric?   You might want to rethink your justification.

And it is a question of how they were treated once conquered.   Can you give one example of any Christian nation taking over a Mosque that was not Christian before it was forced into conversion?   There are thousands of examples on the other side of Muslims taking over Christians.

Wherever the truth lays, it does not lie within this article.

You are entitled to that opinion, but that was not my only source.   I would like to see the articles you are pointing to that claim Christianity was more brutal and more oppressive than Muslim oppression.

I recognize a theoretical difference that unfortunately is not born out by history.

Once again your theory does not hold up to scrutiny since Muslim oppression has never ended and Christian oppression ended 600 years ago.

Christendom was just coming out of the Dark Ages during the 11th century.  Islam was about a third of the way through its golden age.  At this time, the Islamic world was relatively tolerant and civilized in comparison to Christendom.  This applies to their society, academics, art and the conduct of war.  Byzantium was also far more civilized than European Christendom at this time

The Muslim golden age lasted till around 1500.  You can argue that the Islamic Arab world is today in its own dark age.  But this says nothing about how things were in the 11th century.

That is what is most incredible about your argument.  You consider the time peroid where Islam took over Churches, killed people who refused to convert or pay a tax as the "Golden Age" completely dismissing the actions these Muslims took towards other was at least as brutal if not more so than the Crusades.

I for one find it hard to avoid the conclusion that imperfect as Islamic tolerance was historically, it was far less intolerant of other faiths than Christianity has been historically (by Christianity in this historic context, I am primarily refering to the Roman Catholic church).

As to which I completely disagree.   The Catholic Church to my knowledge, has not actively sought to take back over the Churches forced to convert to Islam aside from the Crusades and in counter the Islamic faith has never stopped its goal of religious conquest but once again it is supported in their holy texts where it is not in Christian texts.

The modern enmity between Jews and Arab Muslims is exactly that, a modern enmity that did not take form until the 20th century.  When my mother was born in  1929, there were about 50,000 Jews in Cairo.  Today, I believe the number is 50 or 500.  Most of the modern enmity revolves around Israel and did not take form until the Zionist movement was in full swing.

Once again if that were true than the Jewish population would not have been oppressed as it was  in the Islamic  "golden age" as you call it.

Are you trying to blame the history of hatred of the Jewish people on Israel's formation?

You do understand they were conquered and driven out of modern day Israel centuries before so I fail to understand how you could possibly believe the hatred is only in modern times.

Why was there a Zionist movement?  Why did the Jews after nearly 2,000 years of trying to live in Europe decide that they had to have a state of their own?  I can assure you that it had nothing to do with Islamic brutality and intolerance.  (FYI, I am not a Zionist in that I don't see what the Palestinians did that justified taking their land and giving it to a people that had been expelled 1,800 years earlier by European conquerers.  I am a Zionist in that I believe the Jewish people needed a place to feel safe in.  I just believe that the modern Israeli state should have been carved out of Europe, not Palestine).

Yet Muslim nations today and in that poll I gave you  want Israel wiped off the face of the map.   I don't know of any Christian nations who want the same.    That should tell you something.

Chrisitian Europe imposed discriminitory laws on the Jews.  Amongst these were the requirement to wear distinctive clothing and restricting them to live in ghettos.  The practice of Judaism was restricted.  There were certain countries they were not allowed to enter.  They were forced to take humiliating oaths.   And so on and so forth.

The Muslims had no monopoly on subjugating those of other faiths.  The Jews were emancipated from these European laws in the 19th and 20th centuries.  See here for further detail.  The Jews posed no military threat to Christian Europe.  The Jews tried to fit in (see here ).

And Muslims did the same.   The difference is the Christians ended this practice and it was easier to end because it wasn't rooted in the religious texts.   It is still alive to today in Islam and I submit directly because it is directed in its holy texts.

So, taking another tact, I would claim that the Muslims treated the Christians no worse than European Christianity treated the Jews and that the Muslims treated the Jews no worse than European Christianity treated the Jews.  I don't see how one can condemn historical Islam for religious intolerance without also condemning Christian Europe.  I don't see how one can make the claim that historical Islam was more brutal and inhuman than historical European Christianity.

Christians condemn today the very areas you speak of in its history.  But once again, it ended.   It never did end with Islam and continues today.   I fail to see how you cannot understand this.   Look at the polls again I gave you.   Look at the societies today and tell me where the oppression lies.

[Texmaster]

And since you regard the Muslim  actions before the Crusades as benign,   allow me to give you some examples of their barbaric nature:


Toward the end of Muhammad's life after his successful expedition against the pagan Hawazin and the Thaqif tribes, whome he defeated at Hunanyn  (a valley near MEcca)  he attempted to move beyond Arabia, beginning an expedition against the Byzantines in Tabuk.  He also contacted the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, and other rules in the region   by letter:

the Prophet of Allah wrote to Chosroes  (King of Persia) Caesar  (Heraclius), Negus   (King of Abyssinia) and every other despot inviting them to Allah, the Exalted"   He exhorted them to "embrace Islam and you will be safe"

None did, and Muhammad's warning proved accurate:   None of them were safe.   Not long after Muhammad's death, the Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire fired up by Muhammad's promise that "the first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar's city  (Contanstantinople) will be forgive their sins"

In 635, just three years after Muhammad's death, Damascus, the city where Saint Paul was heading when he experienced his dramatic conversion to Christianity, fell to the invading Muslims.  In 636 the caliph Umar, who ruled and expanded the empire of Islam from 634 to 644, took al-Basrah in Iraq.   Umar gave instructions to his lieutenant  'Utbah'  ibn Ghazwan and said to him in Muhammad's own teachings "  Summon the people to God, those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness.   If they refuse to do this, it is the sword without leniency.  Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted"

Antioch where the disciples of Jesus were first called "Christians"   (Acts 11:26)  fell the next year.   It was Jerusalem's turn two years later in 638.   Like Damascus and Antioch, Jerusalem was a Christian city at that time.   IT was the unhappy task of Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem to hand over the city to Umar.

Muslims conquered Egypt in 639 in December led by general Amur.   In November 642 Alexandria fell and virtually all of Egypt was conquered.   In one Egyptian town they set a pattern of behavior that was followed for the rest of the conquest as told be an observer at the time:

Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou.  There was not one single soldier to resist them.  The seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches,  men women and children sparing no one.   Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found....But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when they occupied the island of Nikiou.   The Muslims returned to their country with booty and captives.  The patriarch Cyrus felt deep grief at the calamities in Egypt  because Amr, who was of barbarian origin, showed no mercy in his treatment of the Egyptians and did not fulfill the covenants which had been agreed with him.


Christian Armenia also fell to the Muslims amid similar butcheries:

"The enemy's army rushed in and butchered the inhabitants of the towns by the sword.....After a few days rest the Ismaelites  (Arabs) went back whence they had come dragging after them a host of captives numbering thirty-five thousand.

The same story came of Cilcia and Caesarea of Cappadocia in 650.   The Muslim invaders raped and pillaged the town and took back with them thousands of slaves and destoyed many churches.

Caliph Umar made a telling admission in a message to un underling

"Do you think," he asked  "that these vast countries , Syria, Mesepotamia, Kufa, Misr  (Egypt) do not have to be covered with troops who must be well paid?"  

Ask yourself this question:   Why did these areas have to be "covered with" troops if the inhabitants welcomed the invaders and lived with them in friendship?

If you like, I can continue with countless more examples of Muslim barbaric conquering during the ages before the Crusades.

[iamjack]

Well Tex if you are going to blame the Muslims for atrocities in the Crusades maybe you should check out the actions of some of the honoured Christian warriors.  For example one chapter in the particularly 'heartwarming' tale of Vlad Tepes (otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler).

The following is an account from the Greek historian Chalkondyles of what greeted the invaders:

"He [the Sultan] marched on for about five kilometers when he saw his men impaled; the Sultan's army came across a field with stakes, about three kilometers long and one kilometer wide. And there were large stakes on which they could see the impaled bodies of men, women, and children, about twenty thousand of them, as they said; quite a spectacle for the Turks and the Sultan himself! The Sultan, in wonder, kept saying that he could not conquer the country of a man who could do such terrible and unnatural things, and put his power and his subjects to such use. He also used to say that this man who did such things would be worthy of more. And the other Turks, seeing so many people impaled, were scared out of their wits. There were babies clinging to their mothers on the stakes, and birds had made nests in their breasts."

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: iamjack

Well Tex if you are going to blame the Muslims for atrocities in the Crusades maybe you should check out the actions of some of the honoured Christian warriors.  For example one chapter in the particularly 'heartwarming' tale of Vlad Tepes (otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler).

The following is an account from the Greek historian Chalkondyles of what greeted the invaders:



"He [the Sultan] marched on for about five kilometers when he saw his men impaled; the Sultan's army came across a field with stakes, about three kilometers long and one kilometer wide. And there were large stakes on which they could see the impaled bodies of men, women, and children, about twenty thousand of them, as they said; quite a spectacle for the Turks and the Sultan himself! The Sultan, in wonder, kept saying that he could not conquer the country of a man who could do such terrible and unnatural things, and put his power and his subjects to such use. He also used to say that this man who did such things would be worthy of more. And the other Turks, seeing so many people impaled, were scared out of their wits. There were babies clinging to their mothers on the stakes, and birds had made nests in their breasts."

Jack,   I have no doubt the Crusaders are guilty of brutal acts as well as many others in Europe.   I even said that in my postings here in this thread.

But I want equal time and criticism of Muslims and their brutality in Europe and the Middle East during their rise and "golden age".

Many people have been taught to ignore the Muslims conquerers and atrocities and only focus on the Crusades and the Inquisition.   Its a PCd up version of history.

And I'm not blaming Muslims for atrocities created by Christians.  What I have said and am saying is that the Crusades were not created from nothing, there was a powerful and brutal dominance of Islam sweeping over the Middle East and Europe which sparked the Crusades.

[Texmaster]

Too bad no one else is posting.  The debate was getting good.

[Fontaine]

They should make a movie from that.....

[Fontaine]

They should make a movie from that.....