muslims PART 2

[Spock]

That borders on 'deconstructionalist' thinking. There is right and wrong. Whether a person chooses to subscribe to societies mores or a given religious teaching is their choice but make no mistake about the fact.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not at all. To me, there is no such thing as "the truth". Reality and morality are relative to the individual. I don't think I'm right.

So when you tell me you think Islam is not a violent religion, you actually don't think what you're saying is true?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You believe one view is right and the others are wrong. I believe all views are right, or at least can be.

I believe Micky Mouse is real rather than a cartoon, and you're him!

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe Micky Mouse is real rather than a cartoon....

I can vouch for this part, I've met The Mouse and he's quite sociable.

[Lief Erikson]

Figures! I thought so!

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that historically, Judaism was a very violent religion.

Just to mention, the bloodshed over heresy was many hundreds of years after Christianity's birth.

well, if many =3

I'd say differently, and I have argued so in Part 1 of this discussion. The Wars of Religion took place one and a half thousand years after Christianity originated, but the Muslim religious wars, the ridda wars, took place right after Mohammed died, when large numbers of tribes tried to break away from Islam.

Certainly, Islam was founded under a tribal system, where whole groups were assimilated or otherwise; whereas Christianity gradually spread through a pre-existing political structure.
However, when both gained political power, their first action was to slaughter dissidents.

The Crusades aren't even remotely comparable to the early invasions of Islam of the nations and empires that surrounded Arabia. The Inquisition and other such atrocities aren't comparable to the Muslim conquest of India, in which 80 million Hindus were killed over 500 years.

really? even if those figures are real, -how about the wars of conversion against the Slavs, which continued well into the late Middle Ages? the Spanish Conquistas?

This isn't talking about the Ottoman invasions, either, and neither is Christian violence in modern times comparable in scale or kind (attempting to conquer a specific perceived evil to conquering the whole world are two very different things) to the Muslim violence.

How many millions in the Protestant /Catholic struggle? European Imperialism? Who has come closer to conquering the whole world?
Unless you are saying that when any nation conquers another of a different religion it's a sign of the violence inherent in that religion except when it's Christians doing the conquering.

If you blame Islam for the slaughters against Hindus then you have to blame Christians for the slaughters e.g. of Africans in the Congo or Indians in the Americas.

As brownjenkins said, is it a numbers game? Christians kill 60-80 million versus Muslim 80-100 million so one religion is violent while the other isn't?




[quoteYou're right to point out Communism. The Enlightenment quenched much of religion's fire, so non-religious nations took over the role of violence and oppression. Neither the doctrines of Christianity nor the views of the non-religious (I think . Haven't researched that much, though) actually urge violence. As a natural consequence, there is less violence in Christianity's history than in Islam's.

I'll respond to the rest of your post and to Oz's posts soon.[/QUOTE]

Again, I disagree that there's less violence in Christianity than in Islam- for one thing, the Western world has through the course of history since the founding of Christianity been far less populated than the East- an invasion of India will cause the death of far more than the the invasion of Latvia, even if the motive is the same- kill all the unbelievers.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that historically, Judaism was a very violent religion.

And Christianity isn't? If we take your way of defining how violent a religion is: How many people were killed by Jews in the last 2000 years? Is it comperable to the number Christians murdered in wars or pogroms? We should look at the present not about what happened 3000 years ago.

The Crusades aren't even remotely comparable to the early invasions of Islam of the nations and empires that surrounded Arabia. The Inquisition and other such atrocities aren't comparable to the Muslim conquest of India, in which 80 million Hindus were killed over 500 years.

Where do you take the numbers from Lief? I looked in google for "80 million Hindus", and the results I found weren't very reliable.

[Lotesse]

Prominent Muslim dignitaries on Saturday met for the first time with the world's most influential Buddhist, the Dalai Lama, enlisting his help in quelling fanatical ideologies within Islamic communities and improving the faith's declining image in the West.

The summit was a measure of the desperate concern among moderate Muslim leaders and scholars about religious extremism and increasingly negative views of their faith arising from Western concerns about terrorism. Indeed, Islam traditionally has not recognized Buddhism.


" The main issue of this conference is to provide a platform to teach that there is no room today to say or invest in anything but love," said Imam Mehdi Khorasani of Marin County, who had extended the invitation to the Dalai Lama. "We are happy and grateful for His Holiness' decision to lend his energy to this cause."

~ the rest of this article is here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines


Now, my point in posting this is that it looks like Muslim leaders and Islam The Religion is actually trying to do something in the pursuit of peace & a common understanding, and change things, rather than just do nothing at all. This is the way to go.

Ciao, Brownjenkins & Raddy!

[HOBBIT]

since i believe that the muhammed cartoons thread was merged with the muslims one,

did anyone see that previous two South Park episodes? It is a cartoon on Comedy Central. They were parodying/social commentating on the Muhammed cartoon incident. They almost showed him, but Comedy Central wouldn't let them.

The show hasn't been censored like that in a long time. They had muhommed as a main character in Season 5 (4-5 years ago?), in the episode "Super Best Friends," - but in this climate they can't even show Muhommed on the screen for mere seconds.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Historian Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization (1972) that the Muslim conquest of India was "probably the bloodiest story in history." The number of people killed is estimated based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations. K.S. Lal estimated in his book The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.

Wikipedia notes that the conquest of India is a hotly debated topic. Some reject the violence claims, arguing instead that inter-marriage, conversions and economic integration are actually what occurred. However, I've found Will Durant to be a highly reliable and thorough historian. I'm writing a historical fiction novel about the First Punic War, and have had to do a hefty amount of research in preparation for this work. William Durant's "Story of Civilization" has been extremely helpful in this process, and corroborating his research with other sources shows it to be highly accurate.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

And Christianity isn't? If we take your way of defining how violent a religion is: How many people were killed by Jews in the last 2000 years? Is it comperable to the number Christians murdered in wars or pogroms? We should look at the present not about what happened 3000 years ago.

I said "historically, Judaism was a very violent religion." GrayMouser was right when he pointed out that the Jews enacted genocide upon some civilizations. Though I could be wrong, I don't believe Christians have done this. Though I do actually believe the Lord commanded those genocides because of the sins of those people, so in my view, those attacks were morally justified. Thus one could say that Christians are equally guilty, since they accept the violent acts of historical Israel as God's will. But Christianity is a New Covenant, a way of peace rather than war. While the way of Judaism was right in the past, a higher way has been revealed. We are a different religion from Judaism.

One still has to note, also, that the Jews' attacks were specific. This people has sinned, so this people must be judged. That isn't at all the same as Islam's claim that Muslims must declare violent warfare against the world.

I don't think Judaism has been responsible for nearly as much violence since the destruction of the Temple and the exile from Israel. The Jews over the last 2,000 years have experienced unspeakably barbarous persecution, and have done little offense to anyone until the last 100 years (the Palestinians).

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

well, if many =3

I'm having trouble finding information on Google about this. Could you help me?

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Certainly, Islam was founded under a tribal system, where whole groups were assimilated or otherwise; whereas Christianity gradually spread through a pre-existing political structure.
However, when both gained political power, their first action was to slaughter dissidents.

Constantine I's first action was to form the Council of Nicaea, to peacefully unite the church. He was almost completely successful, also. Only five church leaders rejected the creed that came from the Council. The five of them were exiled, afterward, perhaps to maintain security for the kingdom? I don't know enough about that. But he did work to bring unity peacefully.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

-how about the wars of conversion against the Slavs, which continued well into the late Middle Ages? the Spanish Conquistas?

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

How many millions in the Protestant /Catholic struggle?

I haven't done the math, but I doubt very highly that this was many millions (if any millions). Many were killed, however, there's no denying that. I'll try to remember to raise the question to my history professor, when I meet him in a couple days.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

European Imperialism? Who has come closer to conquering the whole world?

As Gaffer and I were noting earlier, many times Christian missionaries objected to the oppression of natives during European Imperialism. Also, I've been under the impression that this imperialism was more economic take-over than military.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Unless you are saying that when any nation conquers another of a different religion it's a sign of the violence inherent in that religion except when it's Christians doing the conquering.

Obviously, I'm not saying that. I also know the Jews in the past waged war against specific targets they believed to be doing evil (and often these were groups that attacked them first, like the Ammonites did, if I recall correctly. Canaan is the big exception to this).

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

If you blame Islam for the slaughters against Hindus then you have to blame Christians for the slaughters e.g. of Africans in the Congo or Indians in the Americas.

The Spanish government destroyed missions as well. Missionaries strongly rejected those slaughters of natives, and were sometimes slaughtered as well, as a consequence. There were abuses committed by Christians in North and South America though, I agree.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

As brownjenkins said, is it a numbers game? Christians kill 60-80 million versus Muslim 80-100 million so one religion is violent while the other isn't?

Those numbers are all guesswork, so I won't bother with responding to them.

Here's what I responded to brownjenkins, when he said this to me:
" No. But doctrines impact how people live their lives. If one religion commands peace and the other violence, one would expect this to show up in the number of acts of violence each religion is responsible for, and their scale. And it does. That's all."

Originally Posted by Lotesse

" The main issue of this conference is to provide a platform to teach that there is no room today to say or invest in anything but love," said Imam Mehdi Khorasani of Marin County, who had extended the invitation to the Dalai Lama. "We are happy and grateful for His Holiness' decision to lend his energy to this cause."

It's good to hear!

[HOBBIT]

Christians have been plenty violent in the past 2000 years. Inumerable wars of religion. also various crusades (killing of Muslims and Jews), pogroms, inquisitions, etc. killing of various native peoples (those who wouldn't convert, anyway). And Hitler WAS a Christian leading a Christian nation - he kicked all the Jews out of the military and public office and from all of German life and tried to exterminate them. Thats a good example of Christian genocide.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Christians have been plenty violent in the past 2000 years. Inumerable wars of religion. also various crusades (killing of Muslims and Jews), pogroms, inquisitions, etc. killing of various native peoples (those who wouldn't convert, anyway).

I responded to this in my above post.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

And Hitler WAS a Christian leading a Christian nation - he kicked all the Jews out of the military and public office and from all of German life and tried to exterminate them. Thats a good example of Christian genocide.

Hitler was not a Christian. He deceived many Christians though with a skillful web of lies, convincing them that Poland attacked them, and hiding from them the Holocaust. I asked my honors history professor for his views about the view that the Nazi Party was Christian, and he laughed at me and said "it wasn't!" He went on to talk about Nazi mysticism and give me sources, and point out that Hitler spat on the holy host as a boy. Hitler was no Christian, and the majority of the Germans under him were deceived on many levels.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I responded to this in my above post.

Hitler was not a Christian. He deceived many Christians though with a skillful web of lies, convincing them that Poland attacked them, and hiding from them the Holocaust. I asked my honors history professor for his views about the view that the Nazi Party was Christian, and he laughed at me and said "it wasn't!" He went on to talk about Nazi mysticism and give me sources, and point out that Hitler spat on the holy host as a boy. Hitler was no Christian, and the majority of the Germans under him were deceived on many levels.

Agreed that the Nazis weren't religious. But the German nation - which was mostly Christian - should be blamed. Especially after they knew about the systemtic murder of millions of Jews (it was already known all around the globe in 1943). And yet - it didn't seem to bother the Pope, or the Polish/Ukranian/others that helped the Germans. (In most extermination camps there weren't many Germans - the locals or Jews themselves did most of the "work")

I don't think Judaism has been responsible for nearly as much violence since the destruction of the Temple and the exile from Israel. The Jews over the last 2,000 years have experienced unspeakably barbarous persecution, and have done little offense to anyone until the last 100 years (the Palestinians).

Then why don't you think Islam can change? If religions can turn from "violent" to "peaceful", why Islam can't?

One still has to note, also, that the Jews' attacks were specific. This people has sinned, so this people must be judged. That isn't at all the same as Islam's claim that Muslims must declare violent warfare against the world.

That's because they couldn't, they were too weak! And I disagree. The Hebrews were not at all that specific. They kept conquering other nations in the area, in order to gain gold from them.


Lief, there's the example of the Natives in the Americas - it seems like in 200 years 95% of the native population died. And we're talking about tens of millions of people.
Now, I realize much of the death was from the disease the Europeans brought - but still a lot died from the massacres. (Example - the Spanish conquest of Puerto Rico, or of the Inka, or of the Azteks...)

I really don't think though we can, or should, start counting all th e people killed because of Christianity or Islam. It's meaningless.
As I said, Lief, the muslims were generally more tolerant at the time (the Middle Ages), and unlike Christians they didn't kill anyone just because he wasn't a Muslim. The difference between Christianity and Islam these days is probably that Christianity has progressed during the last 500 years while Islam hasn't changed enough to fit modern times.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Agreed that the Nazis weren't religious. But the German nation - which was mostly Christian - should be blamed. Especially after they knew about the systemtic murder of millions of Jews (it was already known all around the globe in 1943).

Can you provide a citation for that, and an exact quotation showing what was known and accepted? I think I recall from The Century that the world was shocked when Allied soldiers opened up the concentration camps, and in a fiction movie I watched (from a series that is quite well researched), after the war was over and the Holocaust exposed, a German soldier was horrified to see what had happened. So I'd really need to see a citation for that.
*Goes and does some research.*
Yeah, it really seems that you're making a mistake there.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Another controversy was started by the sociologist Daniel Goldhagen, who argues that ordinary Germans were knowing and willing participants in the Holocaust, which he claims had its roots in a deep eliminationist German anti-Semitism. Most other historians have disagreed with Goldhagen's thesis, arguing that while anti-Semitism undeniably existed in Germany, Goldhagen's idea of a uniquely German "eliminationist" anti-Semitism is untenable, and that the extermination was unknown to many and had to be enforced by the dictatorial Nazi apparatus.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Then why don't you think Islam can change? If religions can turn from "violent" to "peaceful", why Islam can't?

The change that is occurring right now is not from violence to peace, but from peace to violence. Modern Muslim extremism is spreading.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

That's because they couldn't, they were too weak! And I disagree. The Hebrews were not at all that specific. They kept conquering other nations in the area, in order to gain gold from them.

What nations are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Lief, there's the example of the Natives in the Americas - it seems like in 200 years 95% of the native population died. And we're talking about tens of millions of people.

Again, where do you get your figures? But you must again note that this was almost all disease, and that's not at all the same as violent conquest.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Now, I realize much of the death was from the disease the Europeans brought - but still a lot died from the massacres. (Example - the Spanish conquest of Puerto Rico, or of the Inka, or of the Azteks...)

Oh, okay, you note the disease. You're right that there were brutal massacres- I already responded about some of that in my post above. However, while decrying the acts, we mustn't forget that often missionaries objected to these conquests, and some of them were killed for it by those governments.

Also, the Aztecs were an incredibly brutal culture. The Spanish had some good reasons for looking at them as barbaric heathens.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I really don't think though we can, or should, start counting all th e people killed because of Christianity or Islam. It's meaningless.

I don't think it is meaningless. We can learn from the past.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

As I said, Lief, the muslims were generally more tolerant at the time (the Middle Ages), and unlike Christians they didn't kill anyone just because he wasn't a Muslim.

The Christians didn't kill anyone just because he wasn't a Christian. While this occurred with specific Christian groups in a few specific times of history, it is not the general trend. Christians who lived in the Holy Land between the Crusades generally got on well with Muslims. Jews in Christian lands, though treated more badly than they were in Muslim lands, weren't exterminated.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

The difference between Christianity and Islam these days is probably that Christianity has progressed during the last 500 years while Islam hasn't changed enough to fit modern times.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "Christianity has progressed during the last 500 years." There always have been Christians who peacefully evangelized, didn't use the sword against others and didn't persecute their foes.

[Lotesse]

Lief, remember last week when I posted here a request to you that you provide some sort of abbreviated bibliography to show us? The reason why I mentioned that was I thought inherently clear, but I guess it wasn't - the reason is because each and every statement anybody makes here that you do not agree with, or respect, or believe, you ask for "citations," or research sorces to show you. Well, if you are going to continue demanding citations from everyone here, does it not follow that you yourself should be prepared to show us "citations" for the origins of your ideas? You tend to gloss over or skirt questions directed at you that you are uncomfortable with, or feel you cannot answer, so instead of answering direct questions or statements of FACT directed at you in this debate, you choose to either ignore or demand "citations."

Where are all your "citations," Lief? Because you make so many wild claims in this thread! It's kind of ironic, don't you think?

And just because your teacher laughed and said that Hitler was not a Christian, doesn't change the facts. He wasn't a good christian, though, he was awful. And Osama bin Laden is not a good Muslim, either. He, too, is awful.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Can you provide a citation for that, and an exact quotation showing what was known and accepted? I think I recall from The Century that the world was shocked when Allied soldiers opened up the concentration camps, and in a fiction movie I watched (from a series that is quite well researched), after the war was over and the Holocaust exposed, a German soldier was horrified to see what had happened. So I'd really need to see a citation for that.
*Goes and does some research.*
Yeah, it really seems that you're making a mistake there.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Debate also continues on how much average Germans knew about the Holocaust. Recent historical work suggests that the majority of Germans knew that Jews were being indiscriminately killed and persecuted, even if they did not know of the specifics of the death camps. Robert Gellately, a historian at Oxford University, conducted a widely-respected survey of the German media before and during the war, concluding that there was "substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in aspects of the Holocaust, and documenting that the sight of columns of slave laborers were common, and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known

I would like to note, Lief, that I learnt about the subject in history this year... and the whole world knew. So it seems rather strange to me that the Germans from all people wouldn't.

The change that is occurring right now is not from violence to peace, but from peace to violence. Modern Muslim extremism is spreading.

But why look at the evil deeds muslims did in the name of Allah hundreds of years ago? Religions can change. I'll give you an example: In the past, the God in Judaism was believed to be with a human-like body. It was changed only in a later era.

What nations are you talking about?

Moab, Ammon, Aram, etc... they're not in today's Israel and were almost never ruled by the Hebrews in the past (except for some time in the time of David or Solomon)

Again, where do you get your figures?

A history book, in Hebrew. Does it help?

Also, the Aztecs were an incredibly brutal culture. The Spanish had some good reasons for looking at them as barbaric heathens.

There are better ways than mass execution.

I don't think it is meaningless. We can learn from the past.

But it's irrelevant in this case. You can't really learn a lot about Judaism when looking at what they've done 3000 years ago.

The Christians didn't kill anyone just because he wasn't a Christian. While this occurred with specific Christian groups in a few specific times of history, it is not the general trend. Christians who lived in the Holy Land between the Crusades generally got on well with Muslims. Jews in Christian lands, though treated more badly than they were in Muslim lands, weren't exterminated.

Oh, I didn't mean that. I admit I've written it, but I didn't mean to say every Jew was killed or anything close to that. The main point is that Muslims treated better to foreign religion's believers than Christians.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "Christianity has progressed during the last 500 years."

I mean that these days Christianity is much much more tolerant than Islam, and if, for instance, you do a cartoon on the Christian God you would'nt see thousands going out demonstrating and destroying embassies.

[Rían]

I read the L.A. Times article that Lotesse gave a link to, and frankly, I'm just not impressed - it was a Muslim from Marin County (a VERY rich place in California) that started the talks. Good in a sense, but I'd be a lot more impressed if a major Muslim leader from a Muslim country talked peace.

I just come back to one thing over and over - in the U.S., England, and other predominantly Christian countries, Muslims can build mosques and attend services; in some Muslim countries that we have Christians missionaries, there's no way they can do this - in fact, they are so fearful for their lives (for the mere fact of being a Christian) that we can't show pictures with their faces on them - the pictures only show their hands or their feet or something like that.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I read the L.A. Times article that Lotesse gave a link to, and frankly, I'm just not impressed - it was a Muslim from Marin County (a VERY rich place in California) that started the talks. Good in a sense, but I'd be a lot more impressed if a major Muslim leader from a Muslim country talked peace.

That sounds so SAD to me, Rian, that you feel that just because it was a Muslim leader hailing from Marin County in California, rather than anywhere else, that this fact somehow invalidates the message and the movement that these Muslim leaders made with the Dalai Lama, of all people! toward fostering religious peace and harmony.Frankly, you're just not impressed? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if a Muslim leader adhered to a typical extremist fanatical stereotype, and got on a soap-box to publically move toward disunity & strife? It seems like some people in this world are just way, way more comfortable with the familiarity and coziness of pointing accusatory fingers and saying "See, I knew this would happen - these are bad people, with a bad, violent religion, and they ought to be my religion or else they are all a terrible threat!" rather than have to climb out of the fear-addicted, narrow-minded, safe-thinking tendency and actually admit that "See, these are people, human beings that are just as well-meaning and good at heart as any one of us who do not happen to share their religion, and these people are not all raving lunatic terrorists, after all, and look- they actually even take the initiative to reach out to other major world religions in an effort to foster world understanding & harmony - that's a great little step toward positive change!" It is not that hard to open your minds and hearts, folks; try it sometime, you'll see! Not every Muslim in this world is a wannabe bin Laden, you know.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

That sounds so SAD to me, Rian, that you feel that just because it was a Muslim leader hailing from Marin County in California, rather than anywhere else, that this fact somehow invalidates the message and the movement that these Muslim leaders made with the Dalai Lama, of all people! toward fostering religious peace and harmony.Frankly, you're just not impressed?

Don't put words into my mouth that aren't there I didn't say it invalidated it, and I said I'd be MORE impressed if it was a Muslim leader from a Muslim country. I'm just not too worried about the Muslims in Marin County!

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if a Muslim leader adhered to a typical extremist fanatical stereotype, and got on a soap-box to publically move toward disunity & strife?

No, I wouldn't be more comfortable. But I would be THRILLED if a major Muslim leader in a Muslim country did what the Marin County Muslim leader did!

And I've said before that I don't think all Muslims are bad, or violent, or evil, or any of those other things. No stretch for me to admit that; I've already said it.


I"ll repeat my second paragraph here, because I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts: I just come back to one thing over and over - in the U.S., England, and other predominantly Christian countries, Muslims can build mosques and attend services; in some Muslim countries that we have Christians missionaries, there's no way they can do this - in fact, they are so fearful for their lives (for the mere fact of being a Christian) that we can't show pictures with their faces on them - the pictures only show their hands or their feet or something like that.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

- in the U.S., England, and other predominantly Christian countries, Muslims can build mosques and attend services; in some Muslim countries that we have Christians missionaries, there's no way they can do this - in fact, they are so fearful for their lives (for the mere fact of being a Christian) that we can't show pictures with their faces on them - the pictures only show their hands or their feet or something like that.

I'd say that perhaps countries in which the religion and the government are not separated, where Islam and the government of the country are one and the same, that such a government would not be very amenable to another equally powerful, rival religion coming in from outside and trying to impose their christianity upon the muslim populace. That's like foreign revolutionaries coming into the country and setting up shop, urging the citizens of said country to revolt against their own government in favour of some new style of government. I mean, if the government and the religion are synonymous, there's not going to be a friendly open-arms policy of inviting rival religions in to convert the citizens of said country away from their home religion.

[The Gaffer]

Here's a sensible post:

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

The test is, though, by their fruits shall ye know them. As you yourself have shown, throughout most of its history Christianity has been used to endorse violence. From the time Christians first became widespread they have fought both each other and outsiders in the name of the Prince of Peace. From the early heresy conflicts where various factions slaughtered far more of each other than the Romans ever did, to the Wars of Religion - taking in the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Inquisition, Albigensians, etc along the way- I'd say Christendom could hold its own with Islam in terms of violence.

So what happened? Basically, the Enlightenment- religion became much less important in public life. Thomas Jefferson's comment that "I care not whether my neighbor has one God or twenty- it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" would have been blasphemy 150 years earlier.

Unfortunately, the Devil finding work for idle hands, the Enlightenment , through the French Revolution on down to Communism and its reaction Fascism, found a new source of intolerance based on political ideology.
(Fukuyama's "The End of History" actually should have been titled "The End of Ideology"- a lot less catchy.)

Islam's problem is that, through most of its sphere, it has not been driven from the public square. Kemal Attaturk did it fairly successfully in Turkey.
His imitators in the Arab world - Nasser, Assad, Saddam- were less able- their secular pan-Arab nationalism broke down in failure to deliver either prosperity or power (i.e. regularly getting their butt whipped by Israel).

In those places where Islam was spread by the word rather than the sword-Malaysia and Indonesia- it was generally more tolerant. In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim state) there has been some radicalizing based on a combination of economic and political stability and a flood of Saudi money-as all through the Sunni Muslim world- spreading their particularly fanatical brand of Wahabbism.

Right on. And the other thing, that you alluded to earlier, is that the Reformation gave Protestants an instruction to find their own personal spiritual salvation and moral guide, rather than through the intermediary of the priests, bishops or other ("idolatrous") hierarchy. Our (Western) concept of freedom of expression has its roots in this revolution. As far as I know, Islam has not had an equivalent, hence "freedom of worship" or "freedom of expression" do not mean the same in those cultures.

But I find the market-place thing interesting. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran embody Islamic principles in everyday life in a way that is inimical to us. However, it may also be that it makes politics more accessible and personal to ordinary people, in a way that our apathetic consumption-obsessed cultures have lost. Unfortunately, it seems that our politicians are going the same way.

Interesting also that you mention Fukuyama, whose triumphalist nonsense he himself has recently acknowledged as specious. We have to ask ourselves who is selling us this story about clash of civilisations, and what do they get out of it?

Basically, of course, the real crime of Muslims is to have our oil. We are approaching an energy crisis and we need to create a political environment in which it is OK to invade and take it for ourselves. Oh wait, we already did...