The Crusades

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The Koran advocates war and violence to convert unbelievers and punish those who are deemed to have offended Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. I've met a few Muslims (and by that I mean all, as I've only ever known a few personally) who feel this is not a legitimate directive in Islam.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The history of Islamic states from the time of the caliphs has been one of authoritarianism in the name of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. Establish some controls, too. Have Islamic states been more authoritarian than other states that existed at the time? What about just comparitively across the region?

Hope you've got 15 research assistants at your disposal. This could take a while.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Islam advocates the imposition of Shari'a law as the basis for the judicial system even if it means using violent means to achieve this (Iran and Islamic Northern Nigeria are prime examples).

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it -- the first line Wikipedia's article on Sharia under the section of 'Contemporary Practice of Sharia Law':

"There is tremendous variance in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic law in Muslim societies today."

[ QUOTE ]
4. Since the state is thus based upon holy writ and the will of Allah, then democracy can have little place except for expressing the will of the masses regarding mundane matters, and thus a totatlitarian state is the likeliest result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. Remember to factor in the fully-functional democracy of Morocco, which is also a country with a majority of dutiful and observant Muslims.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
OH, okay! So convincing arguments work like this: you posit something controversial -- and the onus falls on those who DISAGREE (or even just casual onlookers?) to produce evidence that REFUTES the proposed theory, lest said theory stand as true.

Yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

DVaut1, it's not "controversial" to state that Islam requires absolute submission to the will of God, as spelled out in the Koran. It's not controversial to assert that the goal of Islam is to bring both the self--and the entire world--into following God's will and instructions, as outlined in the Koran. It's not controversial to state that Islam requires man to follow God's will rather than man's wishes.

"Islam" means submission--to God's will. It is the proper role of all Muslims to bring themselves into complete submission to God's will--and to do their best to bring the their surroundings, and others, and the world, into submission to God's will, too. And as the example of Mohammed showed, force can be used if necessary to these ends.

These are not controversial concepts. They are embraced by major Islamic religious leaders past and present.

In Islamic ideology there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular. Hence there is no distinction between secular government and religious rule--it is all the same, and it is all to follow the will of God. Therefore government under Islam has an absolute or totalitarian aspect that cannot ever be truly shaken loose.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OH, okay! So convincing arguments work like this: you posit something controversial -- and the onus falls on those who DISAGREE (or even just casual onlookers?) to produce evidence that REFUTES the proposed theory, lest said theory stand as true.

Yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

DVaut1, it's not "controversial" to state that Islam requires absolute submission to the will of God, as spelled out in the Koran. It's not controversial to assert that the goal of Islam is to bring both the self--and the entire world--into following God's will and instructions, as outlined in the Koran. It's not controversial to state that Islam requires man to follow God's will rather than man's wishes.

"Islam" means submission--to God's will. It is the proper role of all Muslims to bring themselves into complete submission to God's will--and to do their best to bring the their surroundings, and others, and the world, into submission to God's will, too. And as the example of Mohammed showed, force can be used if necessary to these ends.

These are not controversial concepts. They are embraced by major Islamic religious leaders past and present.

In Islamic ideology there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular. Hence there is no distinction between secular government and religious rule--it is all the same, and it is all to follow the will of God. Therefore government under Islam has an absolute or totalitarian aspect that cannot ever be truly shaken loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm going to bed and you're just repeating the same nonsense you cite over and over and over again (did Ibn Warraq really say "there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"?...I don't remember), I'll just answer that obviously, there is a great deal of debate on almost all of that which you say is uncontroversial here -- evidence, clearly, by the fact that there are states with vast Muslim majorities that are secular, democratic, and non-totalitarian.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I really liked the way this thread started out, with people discussing history, and facts. Now....it is a nit fest [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1, it's not "controversial" to state that Islam requires absolute submission to the will of God, as spelled out in the Koran. It's not controversial to assert that the goal of Islam is to bring both the self--and the entire world--into following God's will and instructions, as outlined in the Koran. It's not controversial to state that Islam requires man to follow God's will rather than man's wishes.

"Islam" means submission--to God's will. It is the proper role of all Muslims to bring themselves into complete submission to God's will--and to do their best to bring the their surroundings, and others, and the world, into submission to God's will, too. And as the example of Mohammed showed, force can be used if necessary to these ends.

These are not controversial concepts. They are embraced by major Islamic religious leaders past and present.

In Islamic ideology there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular. Hence there is no distinction between secular government and religious rule--it is all the same, and it is all to follow the will of God. Therefore government under Islam has an absolute or totalitarian aspect that cannot ever be truly shaken loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm going to bed and you're just repeating the same nonsense you cite over and over and over again (did Ibn Warraq really say "there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"?...I don't remember), I'll just answer that obviously, there is a great deal of debate on almost all of that which you say is uncontroversial here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there is a great deal of debate about those things amongst ignorant Westerners, but not amongst imams and mullahs.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there is a great deal of debate about those things amongst ignorant Westerners, but not amongst imams and mullahs.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM, has hit the nail on the head here. It is not what you think or would like to believe about Islam and the intentions of its adherents, but what Moslems themselves do and have through history. They don't have a problem with these things but some of you want to think otherwise.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there is a great deal of debate about those things amongst ignorant Westerners

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take your word for it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. The Koran advocates war and violence to convert unbelievers and punish those who are deemed to have offended Islam.


[/ QUOTE ]


Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

First let me say that the Koran does not insist that unbelievers be forcibly converted--they can be killed, instead; or, if they are other people "of the Book" (Jews or Christians), they may be subjugated under Islamic rule and forced to pay the poll tax. Elsewhere in the Koran it is written that "there shall be no compulsion in religion", and as can be seen from the three choices above, there are two other options other than conversion.

However, here is what the Koran does say (in four translations):

(excerpt)
Sura 9:29 Qatiloo allatheena la yu/minoona biAllahi wala bialyawmi al-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harrama Allahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqi mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hatta yuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroona

YUSUFALI: 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, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

KHALIFA: You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. (excerpt)

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/009.qmt.html

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
First let me say that the Koran does not insist that unbelievers be forcibly converted--they can be killed, instead; or, if they are other people "of the Book" (Jews or Christians), they may be subjugated under Islamic rule and forced to pay the poll tax. Elsewhere in the Koran it is written that "there shall be no compulsion in religion", and as can be seen from the three choices above, there are two other options other than conversion.

However, here is what the Koran does say (in four translations):

(excerpt)
Sura 9:29 Qatiloo allatheena la yu/minoona biAllahi wala bialyawmi al-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harrama Allahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqi mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hatta yuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroona

YUSUFALI: 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, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

KHALIFA: You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. (excerpt)

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/009.qmt.html

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me start by saying that Christianity is inherently violent, and that this is reflected by all Christians in government, across all time and in all places -- as Christianity has a causal relationship with violence, as I will now demonstrate (because, of course, as we all know now, thanks to our good friend M's beautifully argued theory that Biblical quotes will suffice in proving far-reaching political and social theories):

Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Case closed, Christians are violent, homicidal maniacs who must be sent back from whence they came, lest we allow their inherently violent nature stop us from kicking up the GDP a few ticks on Sunday. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

As Ibn Warraq says, there are non-violent Christians, but Christianity is not non-violent.

-----------------

And with that ridiculousness (and the ridiculousness that it was in response to), I'm really off to bed.

[andyfox]

The latest scholarship is Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History, quite an entertaining read. Asbridge was a student of Jonathan Riley-Smith, who is something of an apologist for the Crusades. Yet, of the First Crusade, Asbridge says:

"The first point to acknowledge is that the call to arms was not directly inspired by any recent calamity or atrocity in the East. And although the Holy City of Jerusalem, the expedition's ultimate goal, was indeed in Muslim hands, it had been so for more than 400 years--hardly a fresh wound.

"The reality was that Islam and Christendom had coexisted for centuries in relative equanimity. There may at times have been little love lost between Christian and Muslim neighbours, but there was, in truth, little to distinguish this enmity from the endemic political and military struggles of the age.

"Europe was a long way from being engaged in an urgent, titanic struggle for survival. No coherent, pan-Mediterranean onslaught threatened, because, although the Moors of Iberia and the Turks of Asia Minor shared a religious heritage, they were never united in one purpose. Where Christians and Muslims did face each other across the centuries, their relationship had been unremarkable, characterized, like that between any potential rivals, by periods of conflict and other of coexistence. There is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, empowering religious or racial hatred of the other.

“Most significantly, throughout this period indigenous Christians actually living under Islamic law, be it in Iberia or the Holy Land, were generally treated with remarkable clemency. The Muslim faith acknowledged and respected Judaism and Christianity, creeds with which it enjoyed a common devotional tradition and a mutual reliance upon authoritative scripture. Christian subjects may not have been able to share power with their Muslim masters, but they were given freedom to worship. All around the Mediterranean basin, Christian faith and society survived and even thrived under the watchful but tolerant eye of Islam. Eastern Christendom may have been subject to Islamic rule, but it was not on the brink of annihilation, nor prey to any form of systematic abuse.”

[emphasis added]