I'm sorry, where did I say that killing people was okay?
Yeah, people get pissy when you do things their religion considers offensive. That's rather unsurprising. If you're trying to say only Muslims have been committing genocide, or even that only Muslims have been committing genocide in modern times, you'd be wrong. If you're wanting to say that Islamic Law violates human rights, I'd agree with you, when you look at international definitions and agreements about it. Different cultures have different views on that, though. I would argue that Abrahamic Law in general violates human rights, myself. Just a matter of whether people are interpreting it literally[...] it's quite obvious that Muslims don't appreciate having their religion insulted. And when someone puts up an image of Mohammad, knowing full well that Islam forbids it and finds it offensive, they are insulting it just as much as someone who tries to present themselves as a Christ-figure. It's just different cultural values and weights on freedom of expression.
It's merely different cultural values and weights on freedom of expression.
Second, I'd really like to see the source for that. I don't doubt you, I'm just curious as to whether that's the whole story; just from the first bits of me looking things up, from what I could tell those wars were viewed as liberating an oppressed people.
Liberating an oppressed people? Well, it's more like adding excellent statesmen, an ambition to spread the faith and put that next to a series of escalations, with each one changing the religion to a much more efficient political machine capable of taking on all enemies within and without. What they did was practical, and is the reason why the religion survived that initial tumult and then went on to conquer the world and attain its dominance today. Islam is the religion of practicality. Burmese and Japanese Buddhists aside, I'm reminded of that one dialogue between the Vietnamese Buddhist and a guerilla fighter, with the fighter questioning if the Buddhist would really be so nonviolent even if Buddhism itself was soon to be extinct by threat of violence - would he not defend himself then? The Vietnamese Buddhist merely replies if his religion is true, then sometime in the future someone will rediscover the truth in another form. Hadrat Mirza Bashirruddin Mahmud Ahmad in
the Life of Muhammed sums up the big Abrahamic religions and their take on war; "Islam does not teach aggression as did Moses. Nor does it, like present day (and presumably corrupt) Christianity, preach a contradiction. It does not ask us to turn the other cheek and at the same time sell our clothes to buy a sword. The teaching of Islam fits into the natural instincts of man, and promotes peace in the only possible way. Islam forbids aggression, but it urges us to fight if failure to fight jeopardizes peace and promotes war."
Niccolo Machiavelli advises rulers that should the prospect of war loom ahead, they should commit to war as soon as they are ready - for being hesitant and delaying only means waiting until war comes to you when you are unprepared and your enemy is prepared. The Caliphate needed to invade all of the Byzantine and Sassanid lands across the Arabian peninsula, but they couldn't stop there - they had to drive further into the Meditteranean and build a new fleet there to crush the Byzantine navy and also drive east across the Persian mountains to finish off the still mighty Sassanid Empire. But of course when you consolidate these lands, they stop being buffer zones and start being worth defending, and so the expansion continues ceaselessly. That's before you factor in the political ambitions of leaders. You know how it goes.
Also this is not exactly history ugh it's not my job to educate you shitlord it's the current yearJokes aside I wouldn't know where to point you if you're looking for the whole story because it's a very long one and it has variations depending on whether a Sunni or Shia is telling you it. I don't know if it's still on but the Louvre in Paris did an excellent piece on Islamic art, metalwork and craftsmanship - in addition to showing by period the phases of expansion Islam underwent that spread its influence to all corners of the Earth. Read the Hadiths if you can spare the time (takes much time) and there's a lot of documentaries that have been uploaded on youtube, some by Western state institutions, some by Sunni Arabs, some by Armenian Shiites, those ones are easy (but fact check as you would with wikipedia, goes without saying). I forgot wikipedia too, ha.
EB are good too if you want to be strictly academic, quite balanced. It is really interesting to see the evolution of a religion of the persecuted to the religion eradicating infidels.
If you want to talk about religious intolerance, let's talk about Christianity once it got it's feet under itself. You want to talk about conquest, let's look at the colonization of the Americas.
If you want to make this a pissing match at the same time that Christian countries are building hundreds of mosques
Saudi Arabia's top religious official issued a fatwa saying all churches on the Arabian Peninsula should be destroyed. If I want to talk conquest I've already been talking about how Persia's happy conquest and reconquest time but perhaps the Ghaznavid's take the cake for possibly giving the Hindu Kush mountains their name, meaning Hindu Kill, for captured slaves would not survive the cold. Or the race of indigenous people once ubiquitous to the mountain known as the 'kafir' though on bay12 we spell it as kuffar - infidel. They ran through looting and demolishing temples, utilizing burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures to keep the Hindus in check. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques, on occasion there were forced conversions - If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves. The Turkish ruler of Ghazni made it his mission to rid Peshawar of Hindus. Peshawar is now like Jerusalem or Persia, "established Muslim land" as you put it. Mahmud of Ghazni has this said by the historian Al-Beruni, who accompanied him on his conquest: 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims."
When you want to have a pissing contest between Nazis or Soviets because you can't fathom talking of Nazis or Soviets all that happens is everyone is made dirty. Most importantly, Islam's missionary spirit is stronger than ever, the white man's burden is in the past. Only one of these two religions is an active player anymore.
I'm curious to see where you're getting the bit about the majority of the Muslim world following peace under Dar Al-Islam. As in, those countries that are mostly islamic? Or all Muslims? Cuz' that's a pretty damn big generalization to make of more than a billion people, and it'd be nice to see a source for it. And from those Qu'ran verses I've read, they have minimal foundation.
I think you are very confused on Islam. Dar al-Islam is not a branch or sect of Islam or Islamic jurisprudence (at least when Caliph Umar used it). It is a term to categorize the world, similar to how in the Cold War the world was categorized along the 1st/2nd/3rd world in regards to who they would fight for or if they would stay neutral in the event of a war, only with religious significance attached to continue the aim of spreading Islam. The Dar al-Islam is the Realm of peace and submission to God, the Islamic world, places where Islam rules. The Dar al-Harab is the Realm of War, places where infidels rule who should be converted, killed or if other Abrahamics maybe just forced to pay the jizya unless you're feeling particularly Ottoman. These terms were used by Caliph Umar but were expanded upon as international diplomacy became a thing and the Ottomans needed more terms than "our land" and "not our land." The Dar al-Harab takes on the role of the Realm of War, but its name translates to Realm of the West. Then there's the Dar al-Amn or Realm of Safety where it's non-Muslim land but Muslims are allowed to practice their religion there, or Dar al-Dawa or Realm of Invitation where Islam has only just been recently introduced, drawing a line between those who reject the Muslim faith in Dar al-Harab and those who are ignorant of its existence altogether in Dar al-Dawa. This is similar to the purgatory notion in Christianity for pagans who died before Christ was born. Most Muslims live under Dar al-Islam, it just means they live by Islam's rule ;
) Although to add onto that it in the modern day it can also mean the state having Islam protected in law and so could exclude majority Muslim nations whose states have secular law like Turkey, or depending on if you're Sunni or Shia Iran for example can be Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kuffar. Also the Realm of War despite the name does not necessarily mean active war, as that can also be divided into two subrealms of realms at war with Islam and nations yet to be at war with Islam.
See, I think my issue is that you're implying very carefully that Islam is inherently awful, and so is anyone who follows it. Which is a massive generalization of countless people.
I am not a very subtle person, if I don't like something you know it. Unless you mean awful in a moral sense to which I cannot stand the killing of infidels and don't particularly see anything controversial about that. The second statement and third statement really come out of nowhere. I should have you know if you think I look down on someone for not hesitating to use violence when necessary you have forgotten or do not know that I myself will not hesitate to use violence when necessary (internet tough guy). The only difference is our values in what we see as necessary. I don't for example, endorse violence upon moral degenerates.
You can come up with incidents of atrocities committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam. I can find incidents done in the name of God or communism or democracy, and I can find countless examples of faithful Muslims who aren't extremists and are good people.
Communism is dead and there has not been a great liberal revolution since Napoleon. Islam is the most powerful ideology of our year, its followers highly moral, disciplined and unified with a rigor no other religion or even philosophy has yet matched, it's worth repeating no book secular or religious has been learnt off by heart by so many millions as the Quran has. You can find countless examples of faithful Muslims who are good people and aren't extremists, likewise so can I - this is generalizing. I'm not sure what that is supposed to do, but ok. I don't see it as good or bad people because I find good|bad to be a little to Disney for me, the real world is not like that. It's for me a matter of belief, will and success.
People are people. Some are nice, some are jerks, some commit mass murder. Doesn't really matter, a way is found.
People are people. Some are nice. Some are jerks. Some commit mass murder.
Doesn't really matter. Heh. What is the way? Convert to Islam :
D
Poll
71 (27.7%)
Author
Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion (Read 681215 times)