Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Islamophobia, Racism, and Antisemitism

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:09:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Alright, so I want to tackle this.

Many critics of Islam positively bristle at the use of the label 'Islamophobe' because it has taken on connotations of ethnic bigotry. The reason that it has done so is because the nature of some criticism of Islam is extremely racist, especially that which addresses the history of Islam. I want to draw a line between racist and non-racist criticism, and draw parallels between the use of the word antisemite over the Israel debate.

Acceptable criticism:

- This teaching is bad, and here's why.

- Reform in this area could help Muslims.

- This logic is unsound, and here's why.

-This historical/current movement is/was hurting Muslims/non-Muslims.

All of these address specific practices and present a path for improvement. Most of these would be met with debate and dialogue, not anger, from most Muslims.

Racist Criticisms:

- Muslims have never contributed anything to history or the sciences. All of their achievements were stolen.

This one is just dumb, and the hoops that people jump through to justify are is absurd. It's also a type of argument which has been, historically, used to justify racial oppression, colonialism, and chattel slavery. Muslim, here, is a stand-in for one or more racial groups, because during the Islamic golden age the Caliphates were very ethnically diverse. This also draws upon a currently popular, contrarian subculture among historians who hold that all of western Orientalism was some grand conspiracy theory to present the Near East in an unwarranted favorable light, and that the world as ruled by Islam was categorically brutal, iconoclastic, and libricidal. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the region's history knows that this position is laughable, if only for the immense variety of empires and cultures existent during Islam's centuries of rule. The Cordobans were rabid bibliophiles, and the Almoravids who conquered them were libricidal, and their austere values often came into conflict with the famously lavish tastes of the Andalusian aesthetes. Ormuz was a brutal slaving port, the Mamluk Sultanate was ruled by a class of former high-class slaves. Painting these varying cultures with any broad brush draws upon a defunct, propagandistic vision of the world hanging on from the time of the Crusades: that beyond the Bosporus, Mediterranean, and Pyrenees, the land might as well be labeled 'here be heretics, brown people, and savages'.

- That Muslims hate Jews

This is a flat-out lie, and a particularly egregious one in face of the fact that, had Muslims hated Jews, Jews would quite possibly no longer exist as a distinct culture. Muslims restored the Jews to Jerusalem after centuries of being banned, including by Christians. Muslims protected Jews during the Crusades. The Ottoman Empire offered refuge to Jews fleeing the Inquisition in Spain after the Christian reconquest of Iberia. Jewish culture thrived in Andalusia and Egypt in particular, Maimonides being the most famous scholar to work during this time period. Jews often rose to the heights of civil power, including the famous Cordoban vizier Samuel ibn Naghrillah. The verses in the Quran which deal with this detail specific battles against historical Jewish tribes during the birth of Islam. These were never intended to be, and never were, systemically applied to Jews in general.

- That Muslims are coming to subject everyone to Sharia Law

Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, and to non-Muslims only if they choose to be subjected to it. Non-Muslim communities were historically ruled by their own laws.

- That people were largely forcibly converted to Islam

This is explicitly banned by Muhammad himself (there is no compulsion in religion). The closest example which one can find, historically, is taxation pressure, and this was never intended to convert everyone. Mass conversions would have resulted in civil unrest, and sectarian/ethic war, and it was this end which the dhimmi system was set up to prevent, to the point that it was eventually extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Islamic polities have, historically, been extremely successful at maintaining pluralistic societies, both religiously, culturally, and ethnically.

Basically, to draw the promised Israeli parallel, saying 'I disagree with these aspects of Israeli policy, and oppose these Israeli political groups' is valid criticism, and anyone who calls you an antisemite for holding them is a reactive idiot. However, holding to historical revisionism which misrepresent Jews in order to support your point (there's a private Jewish cabal controlling everything, or Jews are all from Khazaria and not really Israelis) is antisemitic.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:24:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Garbage post. Islamophobia is EARNED by Muhammadans themselves as anyone with any moral sense can see by the animals in human form using Muhammad's ideology to terrorize and kill innocent peoples. Especially non-Muslim ones as Muslims LIE continually about their religious aims as if Muhammad did not command all his followers to make war against all non-Muslims until there are no more non-Muslims. It's one of the world's worst political religions using God for cover for pure fascist dictatorship of believers, all forced into one man's brain and all its limitations. I mean here we are in the 21st Century and Muhammadans are still asking Muhammad's questions about Christian beliefs in order to conduct religious warfare.

Zionism is the second worst religious ideology on the planet and I do wish the stopping of the Orwellian misuse of the term "anti-Semitism" as right now the world's largest population of anti-Semites are Khazarian Ashkenazim Jews pretending to be "Semites" but conducting a real racist war of extermination of real Semitic peoples, Palestinians. Zionism is RACISM, pure and simple racism as anyone can see in Israeli settlement building For Jews Only.

There is no moral excuse for any ethical person to follow Bad Religion beliefs that do real harm to people and two Bad Religions operating to keep our world in Abrahamic religious warfare are Muhammadism and Zionist Judaism. With Evangelical American Christians being the Zionist Jews Big Brother with the money bags and guns..
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 10:39:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:09:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, so I want to tackle this.

Many critics of Islam positively bristle at the use of the label 'Islamophobe' because it has taken on connotations of ethnic bigotry. The reason that it has done so is because the nature of some criticism of Islam is extremely racist, especially that which addresses the history of Islam. I want to draw a line between racist and non-racist criticism, and draw parallels between the use of the word antisemite over the Israel debate.

Acceptable criticism:

- This teaching is bad, and here's why.

- Reform in this area could help Muslims.

- This logic is unsound, and here's why.

-This historical/current movement is/was hurting Muslims/non-Muslims.

All of these address specific practices and present a path for improvement. Most of these would be met with debate and dialogue, not anger, from most Muslims.

Racist Criticisms:

- Muslims have never contributed anything to history or the sciences. All of their achievements were stolen.

This one is just dumb, and the hoops that people jump through to justify are is absurd. It's also a type of argument which has been, historically, used to justify racial oppression, colonialism, and chattel slavery. Muslim, here, is a stand-in for one or more racial groups, because during the Islamic golden age the Caliphates were very ethnically diverse. This also draws upon a currently popular, contrarian subculture among historians who hold that all of western Orientalism was some grand conspiracy theory to present the Near East in an unwarranted favorable light, and that the world as ruled by Islam was categorically brutal, iconoclastic, and libricidal. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the region's history knows that this position is laughable, if only for the immense variety of empires and cultures existent during Islam's centuries of rule. The Cordobans were rabid bibliophiles, and the Almoravids who conquered them were libricidal, and their austere values often came into conflict with the famously lavish tastes of the Andalusian aesthetes. Ormuz was a brutal slaving port, the Mamluk Sultanate was ruled by a class of former high-class slaves. Painting these varying cultures with any broad brush draws upon a defunct, propagandistic vision of the world hanging on from the time of the Crusades: that beyond the Bosporus, Mediterranean, and Pyrenees, the land might as well be labeled 'here be heretics, brown people, and savages'.

- That Muslims hate Jews

This is a flat-out lie, and a particularly egregious one in face of the fact that, had Muslims hated Jews, Jews would quite possibly no longer exist as a distinct culture. Muslims restored the Jews to Jerusalem after centuries of being banned, including by Christians. Muslims protected Jews during the Crusades. The Ottoman Empire offered refuge to Jews fleeing the Inquisition in Spain after the Christian reconquest of Iberia. Jewish culture thrived in Andalusia and Egypt in particular, Maimonides being the most famous scholar to work during this time period. Jews often rose to the heights of civil power, including the famous Cordoban vizier Samuel ibn Naghrillah. The verses in the Quran which deal with this detail specific battles against historical Jewish tribes during the birth of Islam. These were never intended to be, and never were, systemically applied to Jews in general.

- That Muslims are coming to subject everyone to Sharia Law

Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, and to non-Muslims only if they choose to be subjected to it. Non-Muslim communities were historically ruled by their own laws.

- That people were largely forcibly converted to Islam

This is explicitly banned by Muhammad himself (there is no compulsion in religion). The closest example which one can find, historically, is taxation pressure, and this was never intended to convert everyone. Mass conversions would have resulted in civil unrest, and sectarian/ethic war, and it was this end which the dhimmi system was set up to prevent, to the point that it was eventually extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Islamic polities have, historically, been extremely successful at maintaining pluralistic societies, both religiously, culturally, and ethnically.

Basically, to draw the promised Israeli parallel, saying 'I disagree with these aspects of Israeli policy, and oppose these Israeli political groups' is valid criticism, and anyone who calls you an antisemite for holding them is a reactive idiot. However, holding to historical revisionism which misrepresent Jews in order to support your point (there's a private Jewish cabal controlling everything, or Jews are all from Khazaria and not really Israelis) is antisemitic.

- Oh, I didn't see this post. & I totally agree, evidently, saying "Muslims did this", is parallel to saying "Westerners did this". The two are historically & culturally too diverse for that sentence to make any sense at all.

- I just like to add that the idea that dhimmis converted because of high taxes is ALSO a flat-out lie historians keep repeating over & over without ever actually giving any real evidence for such a claim, whereas the facts speak for the opposite. I mean, sure, if you look too closely, you'll eventually find examples of dhimmis who converted because of taxes & for other reasons as well, which is highly unlikely, & that's for:
1. In Shari'a Law, Dhimmis, overall, pay less taxes to significantly less taxes than Muslims.
2. In Shari'a also, in most cases, Dhimmis, if they convert, they will have to pay more taxes. & I can specify in detail about this if you want.
3. We actually know the tax rates implemented in the 3 first centuries of Islam, in which almost all the conversions happened. & there is nothing ambiguous about that. & therefore, we know that dhimmis actually paid, overall, less taxes than Muslims. & I can also get into specifics about this too.
4. Who the hell convert because of taxes anyways, the whole idea is nonsensical. I mean, will muslims convert to Christianity if they happened to pay more taxes?! Of course not. Are these religions (Christianity, Judaism. . .) so cheap that their followers will trade them for a little money!!!

=> This is also one of the reasons I have little respect for western scholarship when it comes to Islam. (I am not generalising, some however recognised that fact, such as LeBon, who noted that the conversion through taxes is a myth & that the Jizyah tax is a very tiny tax).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 12:18:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 10:39:36 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/9/2015 11:09:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, so I want to tackle this.

Many critics of Islam positively bristle at the use of the label 'Islamophobe' because it has taken on connotations of ethnic bigotry. The reason that it has done so is because the nature of some criticism of Islam is extremely racist, especially that which addresses the history of Islam. I want to draw a line between racist and non-racist criticism, and draw parallels between the use of the word antisemite over the Israel debate.

Acceptable criticism:

- This teaching is bad, and here's why.

- Reform in this area could help Muslims.

- This logic is unsound, and here's why.

-This historical/current movement is/was hurting Muslims/non-Muslims.

All of these address specific practices and present a path for improvement. Most of these would be met with debate and dialogue, not anger, from most Muslims.

Racist Criticisms:

- Muslims have never contributed anything to history or the sciences. All of their achievements were stolen.

This one is just dumb, and the hoops that people jump through to justify are is absurd. It's also a type of argument which has been, historically, used to justify racial oppression, colonialism, and chattel slavery. Muslim, here, is a stand-in for one or more racial groups, because during the Islamic golden age the Caliphates were very ethnically diverse. This also draws upon a currently popular, contrarian subculture among historians who hold that all of western Orientalism was some grand conspiracy theory to present the Near East in an unwarranted favorable light, and that the world as ruled by Islam was categorically brutal, iconoclastic, and libricidal. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the region's history knows that this position is laughable, if only for the immense variety of empires and cultures existent during Islam's centuries of rule. The Cordobans were rabid bibliophiles, and the Almoravids who conquered them were libricidal, and their austere values often came into conflict with the famously lavish tastes of the Andalusian aesthetes. Ormuz was a brutal slaving port, the Mamluk Sultanate was ruled by a class of former high-class slaves. Painting these varying cultures with any broad brush draws upon a defunct, propagandistic vision of the world hanging on from the time of the Crusades: that beyond the Bosporus, Mediterranean, and Pyrenees, the land might as well be labeled 'here be heretics, brown people, and savages'.

- That Muslims hate Jews

This is a flat-out lie, and a particularly egregious one in face of the fact that, had Muslims hated Jews, Jews would quite possibly no longer exist as a distinct culture. Muslims restored the Jews to Jerusalem after centuries of being banned, including by Christians. Muslims protected Jews during the Crusades. The Ottoman Empire offered refuge to Jews fleeing the Inquisition in Spain after the Christian reconquest of Iberia. Jewish culture thrived in Andalusia and Egypt in particular, Maimonides being the most famous scholar to work during this time period. Jews often rose to the heights of civil power, including the famous Cordoban vizier Samuel ibn Naghrillah. The verses in the Quran which deal with this detail specific battles against historical Jewish tribes during the birth of Islam. These were never intended to be, and never were, systemically applied to Jews in general.

- That Muslims are coming to subject everyone to Sharia Law

Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, and to non-Muslims only if they choose to be subjected to it. Non-Muslim communities were historically ruled by their own laws.

- That people were largely forcibly converted to Islam

This is explicitly banned by Muhammad himself (there is no compulsion in religion). The closest example which one can find, historically, is taxation pressure, and this was never intended to convert everyone. Mass conversions would have resulted in civil unrest, and sectarian/ethic war, and it was this end which the dhimmi system was set up to prevent, to the point that it was eventually extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Islamic polities have, historically, been extremely successful at maintaining pluralistic societies, both religiously, culturally, and ethnically.

Basically, to draw the promised Israeli parallel, saying 'I disagree with these aspects of Israeli policy, and oppose these Israeli political groups' is valid criticism, and anyone who calls you an antisemite for holding them is a reactive idiot. However, holding to historical revisionism which misrepresent Jews in order to support your point (there's a private Jewish cabal controlling everything, or Jews are all from Khazaria and not really Israelis) is antisemitic.

- Oh, I didn't see this post. & I totally agree, evidently, saying "Muslims did this", is parallel to saying "Westerners did this". The two are historically & culturally too diverse for that sentence to make any sense at all.

- I just like to add that the idea that dhimmis converted because of high taxes is ALSO a flat-out lie historians keep repeating over & over without ever actually giving any real evidence for such a claim, whereas the facts speak for the opposite. I mean, sure, if you look too closely, you'll eventually find examples of dhimmis who converted because of taxes & for other reasons as well, which is highly unlikely, & that's for:
1. In Shari'a Law, Dhimmis, overall, pay less taxes to significantly less taxes than Muslims.
2. In Shari'a also, in most cases, Dhimmis, if they convert, they will have to pay more taxes. & I can specify in detail about this if you want.
3. We actually know the tax rates implemented in the 3 first centuries of Islam, in which almost all the conversions happened. & there is nothing ambiguous about that. & therefore, we know that dhimmis actually paid, overall, less taxes than Muslims. & I can also get into specifics about this too.
4. Who the hell convert because of taxes anyways, the whole idea is nonsensical. I mean, will muslims convert to Christianity if they happened to pay more taxes?! Of course not. Are these religions (Christianity, Judaism. . .) so cheap that their followers will trade them for a little money!!!

=> This is also one of the reasons I have little respect for western scholarship when it comes to Islam. (I am not generalising, some however recognised that fact, such as LeBon, who noted that the conversion through taxes is a myth & that the Jizyah tax is a very tiny tax).

" jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam

And al-Razi says in his interpretation of the quranic verse(9:29) in which the jizya was enacted:

The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person cannot stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, and see the humiliation of the disbelief, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, paying extortion monies to gangsters is most humiliating.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 12:30:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 12:18:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

" jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam

And al-Razi says in his interpretation of the quranic verse(9:29) in which the jizya was enacted:

The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person cannot stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, and see the humiliation of the disbelief, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, paying extortion monies to gangsters is most humiliating

- LoL, wikipedia?!!! This is what's called extreme nitpicking & misinformation. LoL. This just lowers even more the remainder of my respect for western clueless 'scholarship'.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:00:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Islam has become a religion which does not see education outside of the Quran important.

800 million Muslims out of 1.4 billion are illiterate: Dr Farrukh Salem

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:11:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:09:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Many critics of Islam positively bristle at the use of the label 'Islamophobe' because it has taken on connotations of ethnic bigotry. The reason that it has done so is because the nature of some criticism of Islam is extremely racist, especially that which addresses the history of Islam. I want to draw a line between racist and non-racist criticism, and draw parallels between the use of the word antisemite over the Israel debate.

I agree Skeps, with the principle and the points in detail, but with a quibble on the following:

- That Muslims are coming to subject everyone to Sharia Law
Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, and to non-Muslims only if they choose to be subjected to it. Non-Muslim communities were historically ruled by their own laws.

- That people were largely forcibly converted to Islam
This is explicitly banned by Muhammad himself (there is no compulsion in religion). The closest example which one can find, historically, is taxation pressure, and this was never intended to convert everyone. Mass conversions would have resulted in civil unrest, and sectarian/ethic war, and it was this end which the dhimmi system was set up to prevent, to the point that it was eventually extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Islamic polities have, historically, been extremely successful at maintaining pluralistic societies, both religiously, culturally, and ethnically.

I think it might be salutary to look at the example of Zoroastrianism in Islam.

Zoroastrianism began in Persia (modern Iran), and is an older monotheistic faith than Judaism or any of the other Abrahamic faiths, substantially influencing Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam. The state faith of the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian empires, until the latter days of ancient Rome, it was the great world monotheistic religion, and its adherents were known throughout the developed world. However, Zoroastrianism is now reduced to a rump of perhaps 2 million adherents worldwide, with only 25,000 of them in Iran.

The reason? Largely Islam. Zoroastrianism has a long and documented history of persecution, iconoclasty, biblioclasty, forced conversions and attacks by Muslims, dating from the Arab invasion of Persia in the 7th century. Although initially granted the status of People of the Book (dhimmi), their extensive libraries were largely destroyed on the theory that if their writings were not Qu'ranic they were blasphemous, while if they were Qu'ranic, then the Qu'ran was sufficient. Persecution continued under successive Muslim dynasties with the reduction of their status from dhimmi to unbelievers (kaffirs.) A relationship between Zoroastrianism and Islam parallels the relationship of Judaism with Christian realms: one of belligerent overlordship at best, with repeated bouts of forced conversion and ethnic cleansings.

Zoroastrian migration to India began in the 10th century, and for about a millennium Zoroastrians have lived in peace with Hindus there, where they are seen as respected scholars -- a rare case of monotheism co-existing peacefully long-term with polytheism. Though Parsis in India do not preach or convert those born outside their faith, India now has more Zoroastrian adherents than anywhere else.

My conclusion: although Islam's persecution of other faiths is sometimes overstated, it is also frequently understated. Political opportunists have found every Qur'anic excuse to perform biblioclasty, iconoclasty, attacks on places of worship, forced persecutions, expulsions and ethnic cleansings, even to the point of genocide. This has continued to the modern day with Muslim treatment of Buddhists, Hindus, Copts, of Jews at times, and of course treatment of minority Muslim sects.

Just as the claim that Christianity is a religion of love is frequently belied by history, the claim that Islam is a faith of peace and tolerance is often more aspirational than actual. Islam is sometimes peaceful with some non-Muslim faiths, but generally on its own shifting political terms, might be a better expression of things.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:19:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:11:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/9/2015 11:09:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Many critics of Islam positively bristle at the use of the label 'Islamophobe' because it has taken on connotations of ethnic bigotry. The reason that it has done so is because the nature of some criticism of Islam is extremely racist, especially that which addresses the history of Islam. I want to draw a line between racist and non-racist criticism, and draw parallels between the use of the word antisemite over the Israel debate.

I agree Skeps, with the principle and the points in detail, but with a quibble on the following:

- That Muslims are coming to subject everyone to Sharia Law
Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, and to non-Muslims only if they choose to be subjected to it. Non-Muslim communities were historically ruled by their own laws.

- That people were largely forcibly converted to Islam
This is explicitly banned by Muhammad himself (there is no compulsion in religion). The closest example which one can find, historically, is taxation pressure, and this was never intended to convert everyone. Mass conversions would have resulted in civil unrest, and sectarian/ethic war, and it was this end which the dhimmi system was set up to prevent, to the point that it was eventually extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Islamic polities have, historically, been extremely successful at maintaining pluralistic societies, both religiously, culturally, and ethnically.

I think it might be salutary to look at the example of Zoroastrianism in Islam.

Zoroastrianism began in Persia (modern Iran), and is an older monotheistic faith than Judaism or any of the other Abrahamic faiths, substantially influencing Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam. The state faith of the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian empires, until the latter days of ancient Rome, it was the great world monotheistic religion, and its adherents were known throughout the developed world. However, Zoroastrianism is now reduced to a rump of perhaps 2 million adherents worldwide, with only 25,000 of them in Iran.

The reason? Largely Islam. Zoroastrianism has a long and documented history of persecution, iconoclasty, biblioclasty, forced conversions and attacks by Muslims, dating from the Arab invasion of Persia in the 7th century. Although initially granted the status of People of the Book (dhimmi), their extensive libraries were largely destroyed on the theory that if their writings were not Qu'ranic they were blasphemous, while if they were Qu'ranic, then the Qu'ran was sufficient. Persecution continued under successive Muslim dynasties with the reduction of their status from dhimmi to unbelievers (kaffirs.) A relationship between Zoroastrianism and Islam parallels the relationship of Judaism with Christian realms: one of belligerent overlordship at best, with repeated bouts of forced conversion and ethnic cleansings.

Zoroastrian migration to India began in the 10th century, and for about a millennium Zoroastrians have lived in peace with Hindus there, where they are seen as respected scholars -- a rare case of monotheism co-existing peacefully long-term with polytheism. Though Parsis in India do not preach or convert those born outside their faith, India now has more Zoroastrian adherents than anywhere else.

My conclusion: although Islam's persecution of other faiths is sometimes overstated, it is also frequently understated. Political opportunists have found every Qur'anic excuse to perform biblioclasty, iconoclasty, attacks on places of worship, forced persecutions, expulsions and ethnic cleansings, even to the point of genocide. This has continued to the modern day with Muslim treatment of Buddhists, Hindus, Copts, of Jews at times, and of course treatment of minority Muslim sects.

Just as the claim that Christianity is a religion of love is frequently belied by history, the claim that Islam is a faith of peace and tolerance is often more aspirational than actual. Islam is sometimes peaceful with some non-Muslim faiths, but generally on its own shifting political terms, might be a better expression of things.

This is the sort of criticism I agree with, and I definitely am aware that different dynasties and polities within the Islamic world have held vastly different political beliefs. The Abbasids treasured Ancient Greek philosophical works, to the point where the Caliph took the taboo step of directly interceding in the world of religious scholarship to promote it. The Almoravids, on the other hand, were puritanical. Persecution also varied; Christians in the Balkans saw themselves subjected to Turkic ethnic slaving practices, while Christians in Iberia were afforded many more protections. Political nuances always exist, and that's exactly what I want people to explore, so that they can realize that this part of the world is culturally, ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse, and that their history is as interesting and as complicated as Western history. What I hate is the idea that the Middle East is the real world equivalent to Mordor.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:23:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 12:30:44 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:18:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

" jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam

And al-Razi says in his interpretation of the quranic verse(9:29) in which the jizya was enacted:

The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person cannot stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, and see the humiliation of the disbelief, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, paying extortion monies to gangsters is most humiliating

- LoL, wikipedia?!!! This is what's called extreme nitpicking & misinformation. LoL. This just lowers even more the remainder of my respect for western clueless 'scholarship'.

Sorry, are you saying the well known Islamic scholar Al-Razi did not say that? What is your point?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:27:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:23:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:30:44 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:18:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

" jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam

And al-Razi says in his interpretation of the quranic verse(9:29) in which the jizya was enacted:

The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person cannot stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, and see the humiliation of the disbelief, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, paying extortion monies to gangsters is most humiliating

- LoL, wikipedia?!!! This is what's called extreme nitpicking & misinformation. LoL. This just lowers even more the remainder of my respect for western clueless 'scholarship'.

Sorry, are you saying the well known Islamic scholar Al-Razi did not say that? What is your point?

I've personally looked into several quotes on Wikipedia supposedly by prevalent Muslim scholars (Ibn Khaldun in particular). I've bought the English translations of their works, and pored over them extensively, looking for these quotes, and have been unable to find them. Yassine has done this as well, with several posts on these forums. Wikipedia sometimes does good work, but it fails miserably when it comes to citing translated works, because these are almost never double checked. There are also groups (MEMRI, I'm looking at you) online which are deliberately promulgating false translations in order to support a political agenda.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:27:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:11:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/9/2015 11:09:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Many critics of Islam positively bristle at the use of the label 'Islamophobe' because it has taken on connotations of ethnic bigotry. The reason that it has done so is because the nature of some criticism of Islam is extremely racist, especially that which addresses the history of Islam. I want to draw a line between racist and non-racist criticism, and draw parallels between the use of the word antisemite over the Israel debate.

I agree Skeps, with the principle and the points in detail, but with a quibble on the following:

- That Muslims are coming to subject everyone to Sharia Law
Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, and to non-Muslims only if they choose to be subjected to it. Non-Muslim communities were historically ruled by their own laws.

- That people were largely forcibly converted to Islam
This is explicitly banned by Muhammad himself (there is no compulsion in religion). The closest example which one can find, historically, is taxation pressure, and this was never intended to convert everyone. Mass conversions would have resulted in civil unrest, and sectarian/ethic war, and it was this end which the dhimmi system was set up to prevent, to the point that it was eventually extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Islamic polities have, historically, been extremely successful at maintaining pluralistic societies, both religiously, culturally, and ethnically.

I think it might be salutary to look at the example of Zoroastrianism in Islam.

Zoroastrianism began in Persia (modern Iran), and is an older monotheistic faith than Judaism or any of the other Abrahamic faiths, substantially influencing Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam. The state faith of the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian empires, until the latter days of ancient Rome, it was the great world monotheistic religion, and its adherents were known throughout the developed world. However, Zoroastrianism is now reduced to a rump of perhaps 2 million adherents worldwide, with only 25,000 of them in Iran.

The reason? Largely Islam. Zoroastrianism has a long and documented history of persecution, iconoclasty, biblioclasty, forced conversions and attacks by Muslims, dating from the Arab invasion of Persia in the 7th century. Although initially granted the status of People of the Book (dhimmi), their extensive libraries were largely destroyed on the theory that if their writings were not Qu'ranic they were blasphemous, while if they were Qu'ranic, then the Qu'ran was sufficient. Persecution continued under successive Muslim dynasties with the reduction of their status from dhimmi to unbelievers (kaffirs.) A relationship between Zoroastrianism and Islam parallels the relationship of Judaism with Christian realms: one of belligerent overlordship at best, with repeated bouts of forced conversion and ethnic cleansings.

Zoroastrian migration to India began in the 10th century, and for about a millennium Zoroastrians have lived in peace with Hindus there, where they are seen as respected scholars -- a rare case of monotheism co-existing peacefully long-term with polytheism. Though Parsis in India do not preach or convert those born outside their faith, India now has more Zoroastrian adherents than anywhere else.

My conclusion: although Islam's persecution of other faiths is sometimes overstated, it is also frequently understated. Political opportunists have found every Qur'anic excuse to perform biblioclasty, iconoclasty, attacks on places of worship, forced persecutions, expulsions and ethnic cleansings, even to the point of genocide. This has continued to the modern day with Muslim treatment of Buddhists, Hindus, Copts, of Jews at times, and of course treatment of minority Muslim sects.

Just as the claim that Christianity is a religion of love is frequently belied by history, the claim that Islam is a faith of peace and tolerance is often more aspirational than actual. Islam is sometimes peaceful with some non-Muslim faiths, but generally on its own shifting political terms, might be a better expression of things.

- This whole thing is pure propaganda. Zoroastrians are dhimmis by consensus. This is one of those times when a person says something so dumb (& I am referring to whatever your dubious source is), that no matter how many repetitions & over-analysis they bring up, it can't help their case recover.

- Muslims & Shari'a were more tolerant with the non-muslims than modern seculars are tolerant with religious people, or the opposite.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:27:44 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:11:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Zoroastrianism began in Persia (modern Iran), and is an older monotheistic faith than Judaism or any of the other Abrahamic faiths, substantially influencing Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam. The state faith of the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian empires, until the latter days of ancient Rome, it was the great world monotheistic religion, and its adherents were known throughout the developed world. However, Zoroastrianism is now reduced to a rump of perhaps 2 million adherents worldwide, with only 25,000 of them in Iran.

The reason? Largely Islam.

- This whole thing is pure propaganda. Zoroastrians are dhimmis by consensus. This is one of those times when a person says something so dumb (& I am referring to whatever your dubious source is), that no matter how many repetitions & over-analysis they bring up, it can't help their case recover.
Yassine, I don't think it's ever appropriate for a ruling people to dismiss the documented histories of those they rule. Particularly when those people have felt forced to flee for safety, and are presently forbidden from preaching in the very birthplace of their faith. At best such a posture is ignorant paternalism. At worst, it's malignant oppression.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:36:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:19:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:11:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Just as the claim that Christianity is a religion of love is frequently belied by history, the claim that Islam is a faith of peace and tolerance is often more aspirational than actual. Islam is sometimes peaceful with some non-Muslim faiths, but generally on its own shifting political terms, might be a better expression of things.
This is the sort of criticism I agree with, and I definitely am aware that different dynasties and polities within the Islamic world have held vastly different political beliefs.
Yes, I strongly agree. But there are themes. Whether it's Christianity, Islam or Zionism, monotheism seems to makes a fine religious cause for intolerance and persecution under expansionist regimes, just as it makes a fine shelter for cultural continuity in the times of persecution.

Political nuances always exist, and that's exactly what I want people to explore, so that they can realize that this part of the world is culturally, ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse, and that their history is as interesting and as complicated as Western history.
Precisely.

What I hate is the idea that the Middle East is the real world equivalent to Mordor.
More like the amoral, opportunistic, cut-throat games played in Renaissance Italy -- which aren't so pretty or glamorous when we see them expressed first hand through the tools of modern warfare. :p
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:43:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:

Perhaps someone could dust off a history book, however distracting the special effects on CNN may be.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:50:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:43:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:

Perhaps someone could dust off a history book, however distracting the special effects on CNN may be.

I see, it's CNN productions that bring us the propaganda from ISIL and not ISIL itself. I'm sure those trussed like animals for slaughter will be happy to know that the cowards who beheaded them were just props in a fictional production by CNN.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:53:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:50:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:43:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:

Perhaps someone could dust off a history book, however distracting the special effects on CNN may be.

I see, it's CNN productions that bring us the propaganda from ISIL and not ISIL itself. I'm sure those trussed like animals for slaughter will be happy to know that the cowards who beheaded them were just props in a fictional production by CNN.

I'm not denying that ISIS exists, I said that you were distracted by them to the point that you are ignoring 1,500 years of history across several continents. I am assuming your ignorance of this, and asking you to rectify it, because the alternative would be to assume that you are an utterly abhorrent racist. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:53:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:34:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Yassine, I don't think it's ever appropriate for a ruling people to dismiss the documented histories of those they rule. Particularly when those people have felt forced to flee for safety, and are presently forbidden from preaching in the very birthplace of their faith. At best such a posture is ignorant paternalism. At worst, it's malignant oppression.

- Listen, I am well aware of all the propagandas, which are laughable at best. & I have no regards for them whatsoever. Most zoroastrians converted to Islam by choice in the 3 first centuries, & these converts, or their descendants contributed immensely to Islam. & the remaining groups formed small states when the Abbasid Empire weakened, & started slaughtering muslims right & left, such as the Qaramitha, who attacked the Mecca, killed a huge number of its inhabitants, demolished the Kabba, stole the back stone & hid it for 23 years. Or, the Buhuyyun, or the Abidyun, all of which were bandit states whom exerted the most horrible acts against muslims. & sure, there were 'muslim' bandit groups who attacked Zoroastrians as well, & attacked muslims all the same. & to find such examples, you'll need a magnifier & a spirit of extreme nitpicking.
- Moreover, I have very little regard to western scholarship in ANYTHING Islam related, it's so ignorant & so tainted it rarely deserves any consideration, let alone any praise.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 1:58:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:27:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:23:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:30:44 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 12:18:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

" jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam

And al-Razi says in his interpretation of the quranic verse(9:29) in which the jizya was enacted:

The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person cannot stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, and see the humiliation of the disbelief, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, paying extortion monies to gangsters is most humiliating

- LoL, wikipedia?!!! This is what's called extreme nitpicking & misinformation. LoL. This just lowers even more the remainder of my respect for western clueless 'scholarship'.

Sorry, are you saying the well known Islamic scholar Al-Razi did not say that? What is your point?

I've personally looked into several quotes on Wikipedia supposedly by prevalent Muslim scholars (Ibn Khaldun in particular). I've bought the English translations of their works, and pored over them extensively, looking for these quotes, and have been unable to find them. Yassine has done this as well, with several posts on these forums. Wikipedia sometimes does good work, but it fails miserably when it comes to citing translated works, because these are almost never double checked. There are also groups (MEMRI, I'm looking at you) online which are deliberately promulgating false translations in order to support a political agenda.

I suppose that's fair enough, but it doesn't mean those quotes don't exist just because you and Yassine have not found them.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:04:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:53:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:50:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:43:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:

Perhaps someone could dust off a history book, however distracting the special effects on CNN may be.

I see, it's CNN productions that bring us the propaganda from ISIL and not ISIL itself. I'm sure those trussed like animals for slaughter will be happy to know that the cowards who beheaded them were just props in a fictional production by CNN.

I'm not denying that ISIS exists, I said that you were distracted by them to the point that you are ignoring 1,500 years of history across several continents. I am assuming your ignorance of this, and asking you to rectify it, because the alternative would be to assume that you are an utterly abhorrent racist. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry but you claimed that CNN was the basis for my accurate summation of the argument you were proferring and I disavowed you of such a nonsensical claim.
I'm at least as well aware of Islamic history as you are and I am also more than capable of denouncing the behaviour of ISIL as barbaric.
If they insist on claiming to be a new Islamic Caliphate and treating all other religious beliefs as they do then I will call them what they are.
They are ISLAMIC cowards.
If muslims don't like that then perhaps they should do something about it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:05:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:53:11 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:34:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Yassine, I don't think it's ever appropriate for a ruling people to dismiss the documented histories of those they rule. Particularly when those people have felt forced to flee for safety, and are presently forbidden from preaching in the very birthplace of their faith.
Listen, I am well aware of all the propagandas, which are laughable at best. & I have no regards for them whatsoever. Most zoroastrians converted to Islam by choice in the 3 first centuries,
The scholarship of imperialism isn't known for its unbiased treatments of history, Yassine, regardless of faith. The only way to get a balanced and comprehensive view is for such study to be secular, to take into account the histories of the conquered and not just the conquerors, and to be independent of cultural group -- meaning, written not by just one language or religious group.

Whether that history exists or is emerging could be debated, but I think it's unlikely to be found in exclusively Muslim histories of Zoroastrianism.

I have very little regard to western scholarship in ANYTHING Islam related, it's so ignorant & so tainted it rarely deserves any consideration, let alone any praise.
Okay, but which non-Muslim scholarship do you respect then?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:12:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:04:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:53:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:50:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:43:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:

Perhaps someone could dust off a history book, however distracting the special effects on CNN may be.

I see, it's CNN productions that bring us the propaganda from ISIL and not ISIL itself. I'm sure those trussed like animals for slaughter will be happy to know that the cowards who beheaded them were just props in a fictional production by CNN.

I'm not denying that ISIS exists, I said that you were distracted by them to the point that you are ignoring 1,500 years of history across several continents. I am assuming your ignorance of this, and asking you to rectify it, because the alternative would be to assume that you are an utterly abhorrent racist. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry but you claimed that CNN was the basis for my accurate summation of the argument you were proferringand I disavowed you of such a nonsensical claim.

When did you sum up my argument? I must have missed it. I saw you use a movement which is less than a decade old as your only supporting evidence in a discussion about 1,500 years of history. That's not what most would call a 'summation'.

I'm at least as well aware of Islamic history as you are and I am also more than capable of denouncing the behaviour of ISIL as barbaric.

If you are aware of Islamic history, then discuss it. The fact that you've only referenced current events in a discussion centered around Islamic history belies that particular assertion.

If they insist on claiming to be a new Islamic Caliphate and treating all other religious beliefs as they do then I will call them what they are.

Great, do it in a thread about ISIL.

They are ISLAMIC cowards.
If muslims don't like that then perhaps they should do something about it.

The last I checked, they were.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:13:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Antisemitism is growing in Europe.
Racism is growing in America.
Islamophobia is paradoxically growing in Muslim countries. More Muslims have been killed because of Islamic activities than non-Muslims.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 1:53:11 PM, Yassine wrote:

- Listen, I am well aware of all the propagandas, which are laughable at best. & I have no regards for them whatsoever. Most zoroastrians converted to Islam by choice in the 3 first centuries, & these converts, or their descendants contributed immensely to Islam. & the remaining groups formed small states when the Abbasid Empire weakened, & started slaughtering muslims right & left, such as the Qaramitha, who attacked the Mecca, killed a huge number of its inhabitants, demolished the Kabba, stole the back stone & hid it for 23 years. Or, the Buhuyyun, or the Abidyun, all of which were bandit states whom exerted the most horrible acts against muslims. & sure, there were 'muslim' bandit groups who attacked Zoroastrians as well, & attacked muslims all the same. & to find such examples, you'll need a magnifier & a spirit of extreme nitpicking.
- Moreover, I have very little regard to western scholarship in ANYTHING Islam related, it's so ignorant & so tainted it rarely deserves any consideration, let alone any praise.

Yes, and your Islamic propaganda is laughable at best.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:05:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

The scholarship of imperialism isn't known for its unbiased treatments of history, Yassine, regardless of faith. The only way to get a balanced and comprehensive view is for such study to be secular, to take into account the histories of the conquered and not just the conquerors, and to be independent of cultural group -- meaning, written not by just one language or religious group.

- Seculars are as biased as any group, they too have their own prejudice. For instance, for seculars discrimination is treating people with different beliefs according to their beliefs, & for us discrimination is treating people of different beliefs equally forcing them to adhere to beliefs of others.

Whether that history exists or is emerging could be debated, but I think it's unlikely to be found in exclusively Muslim histories of Zoroastrianism.

- Of course, you just happen to be not aware of these things. There are histories written by both Muslims & non-muslims about Islamic History. Although those written by non-muslims are significantly less frequent, for obvious reasons, they still exist & are part of the Islamic heritage all the same.

=> History is taken from those who witnessed it, not from the analysis of those who are removed from it in every aspect (time, place, culture, language, religion, worldview. . .). I am referring to westerners here.

Okay, but which non-Muslim scholarship do you respect then?

- I have few in mind, although, with the exception of those who studied under muslim scholars, none actually strikes me as truly knowledgeable about Islam.
- Some of the names I respect are, Gustave LeBon, who travelled throughout the Muslim World & often inquired from muslims scholars & visited monuments & such. Or M. Watt, who is probably the most knowledgeable Christian about Islam, & others. Nevertheless, their scholarship attempts were just beginnings for others to build upon & expand, though no where near advanced in any degree.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:23:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:12:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:04:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:53:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:50:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:43:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/17/2015 1:37:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone could mention this great tolerance to ISIL or whatever their current moniker is?:

Perhaps someone could dust off a history book, however distracting the special effects on CNN may be.

I see, it's CNN productions that bring us the propaganda from ISIL and not ISIL itself. I'm sure those trussed like animals for slaughter will be happy to know that the cowards who beheaded them were just props in a fictional production by CNN.

I'm not denying that ISIS exists, I said that you were distracted by them to the point that you are ignoring 1,500 years of history across several continents. I am assuming your ignorance of this, and asking you to rectify it, because the alternative would be to assume that you are an utterly abhorrent racist. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry but you claimed that CNN was the basis for my accurate summation of the argument you were proferringand I disavowed you of such a nonsensical claim.

When did you sum up my argument? I must have missed it. I saw you use a movement which is less than a decade old as your only supporting evidence in a discussion about 1,500 years of history. That's not what most would call a 'summation'.

I'm at least as well aware of Islamic history as you are and I am also more than capable of denouncing the behaviour of ISIL as barbaric.

If you are aware of Islamic history, then discuss it. The fact that you've only referenced current events in a discussion centered around Islamic history belies that particular assertion.

If they insist on claiming to be a new Islamic Caliphate and treating all other religious beliefs as they do then I will call them what they are.

Great, do it in a thread about ISIL.

They are ISLAMIC cowards.
If muslims don't like that then perhaps they should do something about it.

The last I checked, they were.

ISIL are creating Islamic history and the first two letters stand for Islamic State.

The world is a wonderful place because Saladin was a really nice tyrant.
Does that make you feel better.
Does it make the Yazidi's feel better?
What about the druids or the christians, sunni's or any other belief system the most magnanimous muslims of ISIL are slaughtering.
Hide your head in the sand and tell them that it's not Islam that's killing and raping them and I'm sure they will feel a whole lot better.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:24:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:12:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

- We are outnumbered here. >_<

- Where are you at in your readings?

- I was expecting you to react to my "dhimmis, overall, pay less taxes". Guess I was wrong.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Legendary_Houp
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:27:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ok, this is a little off topic, but I thought that this might be a good place to explain something.

I personally think (many will agree with me, many won't) that when determining the truth value of a religion, you should look to what that religion ACTUALLY teaches, not the actions of its members. This is certainly hard to do, because the members of a religion are usually the first indicator a person has about what that religion teaches.

However, I believe the point of religion (or what SHOULD be the point of religion) is to find truth in things that we can't see. So I think arguments for or against the validity of a religion should be based on the teachings of that religion. Obviously humans aren't perfect, and nobody can perfectly follow every principle of a religion, some even twist the religion's teachings to fulfill their own desires. Which is why religions are falsely judged based on the actions of the "followers" of that religion.

Let me say here that even though I am in the Brethren denomination of the Christian faith, I don't think any religion today is correct on every single teaching. That is why you should also look for new, unthought-of principles to believe when looking for a true religion. You should always focus on the major principles of a religion, for Christianity, the death of Jesus Christ, and other teachings may be (more or less) negligible. That is not to say you shouldn't still search for truth in the nitpicky principles of a religion, but you should focus your attention on determining the truth of major beliefs first, as they will decide your eternal fate.

I hope that cleared some things up. Thank you for your time.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:30:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:20:51 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:05:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
The only way to get a balanced and comprehensive view is for such study to be secular, to take into account the histories of the conquered and not just the conquerors, and to be independent of cultural group -- meaning, written not by just one language or religious group.
- Seculars are as biased as any group, they too have their own prejudice.
It's off-topic, but I think you don't understand what secular means.

Whether that history exists or is emerging could be debated, but I think it's unlikely to be found in exclusively Muslim histories of Zoroastrianism.
There are histories written by both Muslims & non-muslims about Islamic History.
Except that I am presently talking about Zoroastrian history in its interactions with Islam, and you haven't answered my question. Which non-Muslim account of this topic do you respect?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 2:35:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 2:30:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:20:51 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/17/2015 2:05:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
The only way to get a balanced and comprehensive view is for such study to be secular, to take into account the histories of the conquered and not just the conquerors, and to be independent of cultural group -- meaning, written not by just one language or religious group.
- Seculars are as biased as any group, they too have their own prejudice.
It's off-topic, but I think you don't understand what secular means.

- I don't mean secular as profane, obviously. I mean secularism the ideological & political movement.

Except that I am presently talking about Zoroastrian history in its interactions with Islam, and you haven't answered my question. Which non-Muslim account of this topic do you respect?

- I have not come across any specific accounts, though that doesn't mean there are none. However, there are general histories that include Zoroastrians in Islam, as as LeBon's La Civilisation Arabe.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...