4 ms·

The "core of the religion" obviously supported greater knowledge for roughly 500 years. That's a fairly long time. And yes, they were conquerors. But historical

The "core of the religion" obviously supported greater knowledge for roughly 500 years. That's a fairly long time. And yes, they were conquerors. But historically who wasn't in 800-1200 AD? Remember, one of the reasons the Islamic Golden Age ended was that Baghdad was conquered by the Mongols. (We've had a relatively stable world map since World War II... that's historically pretty rare.) I do think that the last 750 years of the Arab world have been dominated by more stronger church-oriented viewpoints, which is unfortunate for the advance of ideas. But that does not imply extreme intolerance per se or radical violence. To be honest, I don't know anything historically as radical as Saudi Wahhabism or its terrorist spin-offs (well, nothing so "mainstream" at least). The Ottoman Empire and Mughal Empire, as far as I know, displayed some tolerance towards different religious sects (although they were never equals and tolerance varied wildly on the ruler), and the justice / law system in place seems roughly close to what the Christian world had before the Renaissance / Enlightenment days. The forced conversion stats you are quoting are, as the Wikipedia article says, controversial... and the times were different anyways. Today, although the human rights of many Islamic countries are wretched, I certainly can think of several of non-Islamic countries with worse human rights problems, compared to Islamic countries such as Jordan, India, post-revolution Tunisia, or heck even a middle-of-the-road semi-violator like Indonesia. (See: Congo, North Korea, pre-reform Mynamar) That's not to excuse the fact that a large portion of Islam nations suffer from wretched human rights. But, again I will ask you: if you really believe that Islam is fundamentally violent and this fact can't be changed, what's your solution to this? Personally, I believe that thought pattern is rather dangerous. This is what 1.6 billion people believe. Are you condemning all of them? If the focus was more narrow, like Wahhabism, that's a different story: Wahhabism has touched a lot of radical Islamic terrorist groups, and Wahhabism is clearly a religious tool of the Saudi state. Now, many Western countries like the United States are allies with Saudi Arabia. If we were really concerned about Islamic terrorism, you'd think we'd be rather concerned about this relationship. (There's political reasons behind this relationship, of course...)

acqq 10y ago
> The "core of the religion" obviously supported greater knowledge for roughly 500 years. No, what was before 750 years 1) was not what today's religious authorities recognize as the core and 2) was what doesn't exist in that form in the holy texts. In order to claim what you claim you'd have to demonstrate at least either 1 or 2. Because in fact the period existed is spite of the content of the texts and not because of them. The official religious core has the specific names: Sharia ("a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.") and Jihad ("the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and specialists in the hadith understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.") Fantastically, the confusion in the Western world about the "core" doesn't come from any rationally obtainable and provable fact about that religion, but only because of bad analogies. We all "know" the myth about Jesus, and the apparent "distortion" of the core faith by later church practices. The lazy mind concludes, using also completely false "common knowledge" like "every religion is the same" that ergo those born as members of that specific religion and the world would benefit from the return to the core. Which is unbelievably stupid. The same "sola scriptura" idea, that gave the Western world after enough wars and enough suffering enough deaths for religious beliefs, at least some hook to get free from some negative teachings and practices of the religion, if applied to the texts of this another religion (about which we worry now) uncovers immense hate, intolerance and the war until only one religion remains (everything written in the core)! That's the plainly visible truth for anybody who actually reads "the book." > This is what 1.6 billion people believe. Are you condemning all of them? What it "this" in that sentence of yours? Actually just the Western thought projects and supports both the "return to the core" (e.g. through being allies as you note) and the belief in "peacefulness" of "every religion" if the core is applied (which can't be farther from the truth). I claim that among these 1.6 billions you mention most of the people can understand that exactly these ideas ("return to the core good") can lead to more torture and suffering, and that they wouldn't want to be a part of it. It's we, the Western world, that should understand that simple truth. And stop using false analogies. > If we were really concerned about Islamic terrorism, you'd think we'd be rather concerned about this relationship. This argument is just "our leaders always know what they're doing, we don't have to worry or check if they lie and don't have to attempt to influence them democratically, and we can even blindly repeat their claims in our arguments without appearing uninformed." And it's completely false (war because of "Irag and WMD" and "to bring democracy for Iraq" is just one of the recent examples). Please read just the whole 5:32 and 5:33 and compare that with that part of 5:32 that the US president officially presented as the image of the religion and then tell me that you stay behind that. It's an insulting attempt of deception to anybody who knows even just these two verses (not to mention the book) in full (which includes enough believers). Then read and think about the reforms of Ataturk, that's the only long-term direction for these parts of the world and these believers that we should support. He knew that the "return to the core" or even increasing that kind of religiosity there was plainly bad. It's surely bad for the whole humanity.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Islam has many references about seeking knowledge, probably best expressed in the hadiths (Al-Tirmidhi 74 and 108 for example) but also found to some extent in the Quran. With learned knowledge (eg science) in the Arabic world at a very low point these days, it's clear that your answer is pretty much #1. Yes, an Ataturk direction would be a good direction to go. It is true as another poster mentioned that Judaism's rather barbaric Old Testament is tempered by knowledge-seeking scholarly tradition in Judaism and the reforms of the New Testament in Christianity. Too much of Islam does not have much of this at the moment, in fact, recent history has somewhat undone the reforms first undertaken by the Ottoman empire (mixed civil based on French law and sharia, a system still in some countries like Jordan) and the later reforms of Ataturk. Ataturk's perspective is good to note. He was very much against political Islam. He did not seem to be against Islam itself (and in fact encouraged study by sponsoring and radio-reading Quran translations etc.). Actually, he felt religion was an important institution, if I recall, but it should be personal, and not magical, superstitious, or archaic. Part of the reason why I really don't care about trying to prove one religion has more violent text than another, is that I believe anti-rational, political oriented religious fundamentalism is a danger period, no matter what the form. It is not "equal" at the moment, by far. But in the US we have too many Christian fundamentalist pointing fingers at the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism... while simultaneously trying to lead us in that direction. I don't want American Christians to take us where Islam went 750 years ago.
  - acqq 10y ago
    > But in the US we have too many Christian fundamentalist pointing fingers at the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism If your political opponents speak the truth, you still shouldn't lie! If you do, you are the one who actually motivate otherwise moderate voters to vote for those who actually speak the truth, even if their hidden (or less visible) goals are much worse. People still don't want being too openly lied. > I don't want American Christians to take us where Islam went 750 years ago. Well there are already enough (enough to be dangerous for the whole world, again because of the influence and money, just like Saudis and other rich entities in Islam world) American Christians that are anyway at least 350 years behind Europe with their ideas, denying effectively everything that the science discovered since Galileo: that's how much they have to deny to be able to claim that the Earth exists only 6000 years. As far as I understand, any European Christian believer that claims something like that got his Kool Aid from across the Atlantic. If Ataturk would be alive today in the US, he would be declared by the right and as the left atheistic extremist for enforcing secularism and by the left as the pure right extremist for trying to limit the unquestioned expansion of influence of the political Islam. Awful, as he achieved almost 100 years ago what today in the US looks impossible only because of such partisan thinking like the one you displayed: "but the other side says that, then we can't, even if it's true." Really?

acqq 10y ago

> The "core of the religion" obviously supported greater knowledge for roughly 500 years. No, what was before 750 years 1) was not what today's religious authorities recognize as the core and 2) was what doesn't exist in that form in the holy texts. In order to claim what you claim you'd have to demonstrate at least either 1 or 2. Because in fact the period existed is spite of the content of the texts and not because of them. The official religious core has the specific names: Sharia ("a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.") and Jihad ("the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and specialists in the hadith understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.") Fantastically, the confusion in the Western world about the "core" doesn't come from any rationally obtainable and provable fact about that religion, but only because of bad analogies. We all "know" the myth about Jesus, and the apparent "distortion" of the core faith by later church practices. The lazy mind concludes, using also completely false "common knowledge" like "every religion is the same" that ergo those born as members of that specific religion and the world would benefit from the return to the core. Which is unbelievably stupid. The same "sola scriptura" idea, that gave the Western world after enough wars and enough suffering enough deaths for religious beliefs, at least some hook to get free from some negative teachings and practices of the religion, if applied to the texts of this another religion (about which we worry now) uncovers immense hate, intolerance and the war until only one religion remains (everything written in the core)! That's the plainly visible truth for anybody who actually reads "the book." > This is what 1.6 billion people believe. Are you condemning all of them? What it "this" in that sentence of yours? Actually just the Western thought projects and supports both the "return to the core" (e.g. through being allies as you note) and the belief in "peacefulness" of "every religion" if the core is applied (which can't be farther from the truth). I claim that among these 1.6 billions you mention most of the people can understand that exactly these ideas ("return to the core good") can lead to more torture and suffering, and that they wouldn't want to be a part of it. It's we, the Western world, that should understand that simple truth. And stop using false analogies. > If we were really concerned about Islamic terrorism, you'd think we'd be rather concerned about this relationship. This argument is just "our leaders always know what they're doing, we don't have to worry or check if they lie and don't have to attempt to influence them democratically, and we can even blindly repeat their claims in our arguments without appearing uninformed." And it's completely false (war because of "Irag and WMD" and "to bring democracy for Iraq" is just one of the recent examples). Please read just the whole 5:32 and 5:33 and compare that with that part of 5:32 that the US president officially presented as the image of the religion and then tell me that you stay behind that. It's an insulting attempt of deception to anybody who knows even just these two verses (not to mention the book) in full (which includes enough believers). Then read and think about the reforms of Ataturk, that's the only long-term direction for these parts of the world and these believers that we should support. He knew that the "return to the core" or even increasing that kind of religiosity there was plainly bad. It's surely bad for the whole humanity.

soundwave106 10y ago
Islam has many references about seeking knowledge, probably best expressed in the hadiths (Al-Tirmidhi 74 and 108 for example) but also found to some extent in the Quran. With learned knowledge (eg science) in the Arabic world at a very low point these days, it's clear that your answer is pretty much #1. Yes, an Ataturk direction would be a good direction to go. It is true as another poster mentioned that Judaism's rather barbaric Old Testament is tempered by knowledge-seeking scholarly tradition in Judaism and the reforms of the New Testament in Christianity. Too much of Islam does not have much of this at the moment, in fact, recent history has somewhat undone the reforms first undertaken by the Ottoman empire (mixed civil based on French law and sharia, a system still in some countries like Jordan) and the later reforms of Ataturk. Ataturk's perspective is good to note. He was very much against political Islam. He did not seem to be against Islam itself (and in fact encouraged study by sponsoring and radio-reading Quran translations etc.). Actually, he felt religion was an important institution, if I recall, but it should be personal, and not magical, superstitious, or archaic. Part of the reason why I really don't care about trying to prove one religion has more violent text than another, is that I believe anti-rational, political oriented religious fundamentalism is a danger period, no matter what the form. It is not "equal" at the moment, by far. But in the US we have too many Christian fundamentalist pointing fingers at the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism... while simultaneously trying to lead us in that direction. I don't want American Christians to take us where Islam went 750 years ago.
- acqq 10y ago
  > But in the US we have too many Christian fundamentalist pointing fingers at the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism If your political opponents speak the truth, you still shouldn't lie! If you do, you are the one who actually motivate otherwise moderate voters to vote for those who actually speak the truth, even if their hidden (or less visible) goals are much worse. People still don't want being too openly lied. > I don't want American Christians to take us where Islam went 750 years ago. Well there are already enough (enough to be dangerous for the whole world, again because of the influence and money, just like Saudis and other rich entities in Islam world) American Christians that are anyway at least 350 years behind Europe with their ideas, denying effectively everything that the science discovered since Galileo: that's how much they have to deny to be able to claim that the Earth exists only 6000 years. As far as I understand, any European Christian believer that claims something like that got his Kool Aid from across the Atlantic. If Ataturk would be alive today in the US, he would be declared by the right and as the left atheistic extremist for enforcing secularism and by the left as the pure right extremist for trying to limit the unquestioned expansion of influence of the political Islam. Awful, as he achieved almost 100 years ago what today in the US looks impossible only because of such partisan thinking like the one you displayed: "but the other side says that, then we can't, even if it's true." Really?