4 ms·

> which used to be just as bad as Islamic fundamentalism This is unsubstantiated even in mediaeval times. For example the crusades were minor skirmishes compar

> which used to be just as bad as Islamic fundamentalism This is unsubstantiated even in mediaeval times. For example the crusades were minor skirmishes compared to what is the invasion of spain and the balkans - not to mention all the other places in Africa, Asia and the middle east. It is also implies that Islam can be reformed (because it's just another religion) and is just behind for developmental reasons, but there are fundamental differences. Broadly speaking, Christianity is Orthodox - it is important what you believe, Islam is Orthopraxic - it is important what you do. More importantly, Islam makes a virtue of violence and conquests and Christianity is centred on piety. Now clearly they can be binding forces for tribes and it is possible for Christians to be quarelsome and muslims to be peaceful but this is in contradiction with the teachings. (And all the refutations to this w.r.t. to the Quran either only apply to believers, or are superceded later in the Quran).

nkoren 8y ago
Bullshit. You want proof that doesn't appeal to the Quran? Fine. In long-Islamic countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, there are a large number of pre-existing minority religions: Yazidis, Mandeans, Samaritans, and a number of others -- as well as long-established Jewish and Christian communities. Those communities have been surrounded by Islam for more than a thousand years, and while they've undoubtedly got some legitimate complaints about Islam, the fact is that they're still there. Compare and contrast to Christianity. Before Christianity took over, Europe, like the Middle East was a rich tapestry of pre-existing religions. None of them survived: they were universally exterminated with extreme prejudice. This was not a gentle process: Norway, for example, was Christianised by as man whose favoured way of dealing with stubborn pagans was to force iron rods down their throats and force poisonous snakes into them. So no, Christianity wasn't a more tolerant religion. The absence of any survivors -- in contrast to Islam -- is a testament to this.
- titanix2 8y ago
  It is funny you take the example of Christians community in the Middle East, because right now they are precisely the target of Sunnis terrorists and in great danger. A few month ago, a Libanese bishop was saying in a newspaper that "Christians will inevitably disappear from the Middle-East, even from Lebanon". He predicted that to happen in the timeframe of a decade. [1] https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1110721/-a-quoi-servent-les-eglises-si-elles-sont-vides-et-fermees-.html https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1110721/-a-quoi-serven...
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    No, it's not funny. A century or two of attacks on the region from Christians has soured relationships in the area, but those Lebanese Christians lived in Muslim controlled areas for over a millennium. By comparison, Muslims in Spain were immediately forced to convert or leave, and in 200 years any ember of the religion was dead. The current situation stems from much more than just religious choice.
    - titanix2 8y ago
      You are rewriting history. The actual Lebanon territory contained Christians centuries before it became muslim. And it became a muslim territory after conquests. The fact that most regions of the world where there is muslim believers (Middle East, some parts of Europe and of the Indian subcontinent, Maghreb) is because of military conquest is telling. The only place this religion spread peacefully is South-Asia. The Spanish case is also totally different and you can't blame them to get back again their territory and hold a grudge against the religion of their former invaders. I agree however that this is more complex than a simple religion choice, because in most case, this is not a choice (especially centuries ago) and its intertwined with a lot of other factors.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        I'm not rewriting history, I'm separating the state from the religion. Yes, the Islamic empires were built with the military. After a state was conquered, there was usually not the forced conversion common in Christianity. Hence Lebanon containing Christians throug a millennium of Muslim dominance. The Spanish case is not different. Much of Spain had been Muslim for as long as it had ever been Christian, and the Christians had been part of the empire for centuries. The expulsion wasn't an ancient grudge over being conquered, if it was then they wouldn't have also forced the Jewish population to do the same thing. Oh, and if Spanish aggression was justified, colonialism justifies the current aggression in the Middle East.
  - nkoren 8y ago
    These are different goalposts. I responding to the claim that Christianity has historically been a more tolerant religion than Islam; this specific claim is bullshit. The fact that religious minorities in Islamic-majority countries even exist -- in stark contrast to European Christendom, where all religious minorities were ruthlessly exterminated -- is proof of this. But that's history. If we're talking about the present day, that's another matter entirely. The Islamic State is, today, roughly as ruthless and intolerant as Christianity used to be. This is not a defence of the Islamic State: what they do is evil and abhorrent and deserves to be stopped. And ISIS is in many ways a "natural" extremity of Wahhabi fundamentalism, which is deeply problematic wherever it is found. I'm not bringing up Christianity's appalling history in Europe for the sake of exculpatory whataboutism, but rather to make the point that no religion is a monolith, and that the same broad umbrella can contain both tolerant sects and theocratic genocidal ones. So my contention is that Wahhabiism and its even worse offshoots should not be conflated with Islam as a whole, which both historically and continuing into the present day has been a largely (if unevenly) tolerant religion. Those tolerant elements should be acknowledged and accepted. When people condemn Islam as a whole, this diminishes the standing of tolerant Muslims (who can then be attacked as some kind of fifth column), and increasing the standing of extremists (who can then position themselves as stalwart defenders of the faith). So not only is the "Islam has always been intolerant, and therefore must be opposed" argument simply wrong on a factual basis, it's also bad tactics. Unless you want to be in league with the extremists.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

nkoren 8y ago

Bullshit. You want proof that doesn't appeal to the Quran? Fine. In long-Islamic countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, there are a large number of pre-existing minority religions: Yazidis, Mandeans, Samaritans, and a number of others -- as well as long-established Jewish and Christian communities. Those communities have been surrounded by Islam for more than a thousand years, and while they've undoubtedly got some legitimate complaints about Islam, the fact is that they're still there. Compare and contrast to Christianity. Before Christianity took over, Europe, like the Middle East was a rich tapestry of pre-existing religions. None of them survived: they were universally exterminated with extreme prejudice. This was not a gentle process: Norway, for example, was Christianised by as man whose favoured way of dealing with stubborn pagans was to force iron rods down their throats and force poisonous snakes into them. So no, Christianity wasn't a more tolerant religion. The absence of any survivors -- in contrast to Islam -- is a testament to this.

titanix2 8y ago
It is funny you take the example of Christians community in the Middle East, because right now they are precisely the target of Sunnis terrorists and in great danger. A few month ago, a Libanese bishop was saying in a newspaper that "Christians will inevitably disappear from the Middle-East, even from Lebanon". He predicted that to happen in the timeframe of a decade. [1] https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1110721/-a-quoi-servent-les-eglises-si-elles-sont-vides-et-fermees-.html https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1110721/-a-quoi-serven...
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  No, it's not funny. A century or two of attacks on the region from Christians has soured relationships in the area, but those Lebanese Christians lived in Muslim controlled areas for over a millennium. By comparison, Muslims in Spain were immediately forced to convert or leave, and in 200 years any ember of the religion was dead. The current situation stems from much more than just religious choice.
  - titanix2 8y ago
    You are rewriting history. The actual Lebanon territory contained Christians centuries before it became muslim. And it became a muslim territory after conquests. The fact that most regions of the world where there is muslim believers (Middle East, some parts of Europe and of the Indian subcontinent, Maghreb) is because of military conquest is telling. The only place this religion spread peacefully is South-Asia. The Spanish case is also totally different and you can't blame them to get back again their territory and hold a grudge against the religion of their former invaders. I agree however that this is more complex than a simple religion choice, because in most case, this is not a choice (especially centuries ago) and its intertwined with a lot of other factors.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      I'm not rewriting history, I'm separating the state from the religion. Yes, the Islamic empires were built with the military. After a state was conquered, there was usually not the forced conversion common in Christianity. Hence Lebanon containing Christians throug a millennium of Muslim dominance. The Spanish case is not different. Much of Spain had been Muslim for as long as it had ever been Christian, and the Christians had been part of the empire for centuries. The expulsion wasn't an ancient grudge over being conquered, if it was then they wouldn't have also forced the Jewish population to do the same thing. Oh, and if Spanish aggression was justified, colonialism justifies the current aggression in the Middle East.
- nkoren 8y ago
  These are different goalposts. I responding to the claim that Christianity has historically been a more tolerant religion than Islam; this specific claim is bullshit. The fact that religious minorities in Islamic-majority countries even exist -- in stark contrast to European Christendom, where all religious minorities were ruthlessly exterminated -- is proof of this. But that's history. If we're talking about the present day, that's another matter entirely. The Islamic State is, today, roughly as ruthless and intolerant as Christianity used to be. This is not a defence of the Islamic State: what they do is evil and abhorrent and deserves to be stopped. And ISIS is in many ways a "natural" extremity of Wahhabi fundamentalism, which is deeply problematic wherever it is found. I'm not bringing up Christianity's appalling history in Europe for the sake of exculpatory whataboutism, but rather to make the point that no religion is a monolith, and that the same broad umbrella can contain both tolerant sects and theocratic genocidal ones. So my contention is that Wahhabiism and its even worse offshoots should not be conflated with Islam as a whole, which both historically and continuing into the present day has been a largely (if unevenly) tolerant religion. Those tolerant elements should be acknowledged and accepted. When people condemn Islam as a whole, this diminishes the standing of tolerant Muslims (who can then be attacked as some kind of fifth column), and increasing the standing of extremists (who can then position themselves as stalwart defenders of the faith). So not only is the "Islam has always been intolerant, and therefore must be opposed" argument simply wrong on a factual basis, it's also bad tactics. Unless you want to be in league with the extremists.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]