The Crusades

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been accused of a lot of things, but whining has never, ever been one of them.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, you just have.

There's a first time for everything.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been accused of a lot of things, Sparky, but whining has never, ever been one of them.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, you just have.

There's a first time for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - like I couldn't see that gigantuous piece of retort coming!

To which, considering the source, I'll simply, in my simple way, reply: "meh."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really read Orianna Fallaci either.



[/ QUOTE ]


Let me understand this : Did you just recommend an author you have NOT read?

This would be brilliant, even by your standards...

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely so, because I have read of her, and interviews with her; and because I think some on this board DO NOT sufficiently abhor totalitarianism. She has stood against fascism, and fascistic things, from the nascent days of the Italian fascists and yet even today against Islamofascism. Naturally, the backwards loons want to kill her, just as they did Theo Van Gogh, and as they have aimed at Rushdie; totalitarianistic thinking is evil, whether it is state-sponsored fascism or religio-fascism.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
What I do disagree with, and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but your opinion flies in the face of theose who have lived, breathed and studied Islam all of their lives--the Muslim imams, the mullahs, and the madrassas teachers: THEY believe man's only rightful freedom is to worship Allah and to behave as prescribed in the Koran. What's more, they say so. Of course they don't see that as evil but as good: but regardless of the question of evil or good, it is clearly totalitarian--and you and I (I should think), consider thatto be a bad rather than good thing.

[MMMMMM]

DVaut1,

Paul Hill is clearly wrong in his interpretation of Christianity, as you can see for yourself if you just get a Bible with red-letter text and read the highlighted words of Jesus. Jesus' instructions are clearly: to not resist evil; to turn the other cheek; to forgive. The not resisting evil part is very key here. Others have misunderstood the teachings of Jesus, but they really aren't taking them literally and following them completely; if they were, they would have to be pacifists (as were the Early Christians).

Next, if you get a Koran and read through and find all the imjunctions to Muslims, the instructions given to them, you will see a mountain of injunctions to fight the infidel, to subjugate the infidel, to force the world to conform to Allah's will. I have posted many of these commands, perhaps even in the thread we are remembering; there are NOT any such commands given by Jesus, however. In fact, the injunctions given by Jesus are virtually the polar opposites of such directions.

The vast majority of Christian authorities, while certainly not all pacifists, nevertheless would agree that Paul Hill's interpretation and actions are wrong. HOWEVER, the vast majority of imams, do NOT say that the passages in the Koran advocating fighting and subjugating the infidel are wrong; rather, well, why don't you go and read for yourself what they themselves have said ( www.MEMRI.org ), or just listen to what the mullahs and imams say?

I now think you are sincere, but you just haven't read much of the Koran, or of the Gospels (since the Gospels contain the best known records of Jesus' words). If you would do those things, then familiarize yourself further with what prominent imams, mullahs, and even terrorists are saying, you might obtain a very different perspective about the whole thing (then again you might not). However if you are keenly interested, that is what I would recommend you do.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I now think you are sincere, but you just haven't read much of the Koran, or of the Gospels (since the Gospels contain the best known records of Jesus' words).

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know what I have and haven't read? FYI, I've read the Gospels, a few times -- my Paul Hill comment was an attempt to point out that the "Just look at the POV of these fringe guys, they're indicative of the true nature of the religion" argument is fallacious; not that I truly believe Christianity is inherently a religion of violence. My question of 'You weren't convinced?' was genuine -- you shouldn't have been convinced!

And again...the fact that the *only* explanation you can turn to for why people haven't come to the same conclusions you have is that they're not as informed or as knowledgeable as you (the 'you just haven't read' comment) is a very serious intellectual flaw. You will be constantly frustrated about your inability to persuade people you're right if you continue to refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong (as contradictory as that may sound), and that when people disagree with you, it is not always (or should I say, it's hardly ever ) a case of someone not listening to you, or not having accessed the same information you have.

As with most things in life (and this doesn't apply only to you, but certainly does apply to you, as it does to everyone) -- people disagree with you because you are generally unpersuasive. Nothing of what you say in regards to Islam, and the relationship between Islam and politcs, is particularly convincing. And it's not because no one is listening, and it's not because you think you're the only guy in town who reads.

As Cyrus correctly points out:

[ QUOTE ]
Your ideas, such as sampled above regarding punishment of innocents, are quite close to totalitarianism, actually, although I'm sure you are blissfully unaware of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you've got alot in common with the totalitarians you claim to abhor, and yet I'm not quite sure you have any idea why you have so much in common with them, which is rather puzzling, to say the least.

Find pluralism in the dictionary. That's a start on the road to recovery.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in the reasons for your certainty here DVaut. That is, why there would be no causal relation between Islam and Islamic states tending to be totalitarian (if they do have that tendency). Thus, what other reasons would there be? And obviously if there are other such reasons, then many other non-Islamic totalitarian states should be the result of the same causes.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in the reasons for your certainty here DVaut. That is, why there would be no causal relation between Islam and Islamic states tending to be totalitarian (if they do have that tendency). Thus, what other reasons would there be? And obviously if there are other such reasons, then many other non-Islamic totalitarian states should be the result of the same causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's one that immediately popped into my head, and one that I suspect might have some normativity (although I certainly haven't done a vigorous study, if a vigorous study were even possible):

Rejection of modernity (or more broadly, fear of change); Peter Gay's book The Outsider as Insider is a fantastic book that chronicles the culture of the Weimar Republic, and how the rapid modernization of German society led to an immense backlash that spurred the rise of the Third Reich. Little Man, What Now? is closely related and equally important in the study of what led to the rise of the Third Reich...included in Fallada's work (Little Man...)is a rather vivid picture of how fascists rely on using overtly masculine rhetoric (and enacting policies meant to appeal to rectify 'male anxiety') can lead a state to fall prey to leaders who advocate totalitarianism.

Speaking of male anxiety, adherence to an overly-masculine ethic is another theory as to why states that have a foundation of religious fundamentalism (be they Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) will frequently turn to totalitarian or oppressive means of governance. Ducat details in the recently released The Wimp Factor how Holy Wars of all kind are frequently waged to placate mass male hysteria.

So there's two (although I'm sure I could speculate as I have here, and come up with many more) reasons as to why I'm fairly certain that there's not a particularly causal relationship between Islam and totalitarianism, even if there's a correlation between Islam and totalitarianism (and I don't think has ever been successfully demonstrated, either).

[BluffTHIS!]

But wouldn't it be fair to hypothesize then that those 2 causes were themselves caused by Islam and thus there is a causal chain linking totalitarian states and Islam after all? Else how do you explain those two causes existing in most Islamic states?

[MMMMMM]

Amazing...you have the Bible, OK...but you have read very little of the Koran, yet you think you know what it is all about (or more appropriately, what it IS NOT about).

I don't have time or inclination to write a tome to convince you or others...I gave good recommendations for reading...take or pass, it's your loss not mine.

Funny too you should advise me about pluralism...that's exactly my point, Islam is non-pluralistic, and absolutist...THAT'S what I take issue with. I'm all for pluralism--EXCEPT when one of the entities is non-pluralistic and absolutist. Another way of looking at it is that I'm all for tolerance...but that doesn't give a pass to intolerant persons or intolerant ideologies...I'm all for freedom, but that doesn't mean I support the freedom of "A" to enslave "B"...you should really read more about what you are defending, Islam is very much an absolutist and totalitarian ideology...it is sad that many Westerners know so little about it, and that they erroneously presume it is just another side of the same coin.