Anti-Islamic Sentiment on RF

[Autodidact]

Kai you know history as well as anyone.

This is my view of the big part of the problem between the Islamic cultures in the Middle East and the secular west.

The Muslims are P***** off at their repressive Governments.(Turkey excluded)
We have been propping these repressive Governments up with arm sales and money. Why because we need the oil from the area and we like stability and yes dictatorships provide stability. They get angrier and angrier and more radicalized. You add Israel into the mix and you got a powder cage ready to explode. Next we vote in our ex-president who said and did every thing he could to make the situation worse.

Then we end up with our talking heads on the news who say things like "They hate us because of our freedom" The American public has such a poor knowledge of; History,Geography and foreign current events that they buy load this crap.

Muslims are not the only ones at fault, we have caused a large part of this problem.

There are two potential methods to keep this pot from boiling over:

-Hold the lid on the pot as it is boiling over. This will burn our hands.
-Turn off the stove. Lower the heat.

I believe the 2nd solution is much more rational.

Good insights and summary.

 

[Caladan]

The Dharmic faiths do have there problems. (Caste system to name one) But religion being used as a motive for state expansion is not one of it's historical vices.

While I wasn't expecting Dharmic apologetics, as I have not singled out Dharmic religions. I find that all major religions, including the Dharmic ones have social and political challenges to overcome. nations with Dharmic religions are not above troubling social trends.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

While I wasn't expecting Dharmic apologetics, as I have not singled out Dharmic religions. I find that all major religions, including the Dharmic ones have social and political challenges to overcome. nations with Dharmic religions are not above troubling social trends.

Good point !

 

[gnostic]

No,I am not saying that...Pagans have committed crimes and invaded others.

Crimes, yeah for sure.

However, there are no pagan polytheistic religions that called on armies to invade another kingdoms because their religions say so. Religion was never a factor as the cause of invasion for pagans. Invasions were solely politicial and territorial.

Here is an example:

When the Persians invaded Greece twice in the 5th century BC, it was done out of religion or in the names of deities, nor did the Persians invaded in order to convert people to their religion. When the Greeks won they gave thanks to their respective gods, but religion was the motive to fight the Persians, their motives were to keep their freedom

Do you know of single kingdom that invaded another, solely on the reason of their religion or for their gods?

 

[Caladan]

Crimes, yeah for sure.

However, there are no pagan polytheistic religions that called on armies to invade another kingdoms because their religions say so. Religion was never a factor as the cause of invasion for pagans. Invasions were solely politicial and territorial.

We would be naive to think that the same did not apply to 'Christian empires'.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Crimes, yeah for sure.

However, there are no pagan polytheistic religions that called on armies to invade another kingdoms because their religions say so. Religion was never a factor as the cause of invasion for pagans. Invasions were solely politicial and territorial.

Here is an example:

When the Persians invaded Greece twice in the 5th century BC, it was done out of religion or in the names of deities, nor did the Persians invaded in order to convert people to their religion. When the Greeks won they gave thanks to their respective gods, but religion was the motive to fight the Persians, their motives were to keep their freedom

Do you know of single kingdom that invaded another, solely on the reason of their religion or for their gods?

I agree with you. Just for fun, after some thought, I think did come up one with one example. The Aztecs they invaded the peoples around them. To sacrifice them to their gods and then eat them. :drool: So I guess we need to say from now on. That non-cannibalistic pagan cultures did not invade their neighors :sorry1:

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

We would be naive to think that the same did not apply to 'Christian empires'.

Not all Christian wars were do conversion. Many wars were justified with the potential to convert the heathen here are Just a few:

- Albigensian Crusade
-1-9 Crusades in the middle east
- Crusade of Nicopolis
- Crusade of Varna
-Crusade of 1456
-Swedish Crusade
- Wendish Crusade

The taking over of the New World was seen as a doing the "Indian Savages" a favor to convert them to Christianity. The same can be said of European Colonialism in places like Africa and Asia.

I think it should be said that Modern War has much less to do about religion and more to do about nationalism. Today no war is about only religion it must always have some nationistic component to it.

 

[kai]

Yes there are many stories were where the brave Rajputs rode off to there death knowing that they would lose there life in battle. All the women and children stayed back and committed suicide rather then be converted and become slaves. The Portuguese also had the Indian Goa Inquisition from 1560 to 1812. we have no idea how many Hindus,Muslims and Jews they killed because most of the records were destroyed. No culture is perfect.

This is the story of the middle eastern countries in contact with non monotheist cultures.

In Europe I would say the the Muslim were a bit more civilized then the Christians. The Moors treated the Jews in Spain much better then the Christians did

.

Well not all the time i am afraid in the 11th century there were Pogroms such as :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre

 

[kai]

I am not defending Islamic Colonialism. The way the English created the boundaries between states is still a problem today.
Just look at Iraq with three different Ethnic groups in the same country. The way the small country of Britain kept control, divide and conquer, then feed the ethnic tensions.

Of course national boundaries are a problem today, where as under the Ottoman there were no national boundaries it was all Ottoman"Pax Ottomana"we in the west have a history ,most countries in the middle east are really only just beginning theirs.

 

[kai]

Kai you know history as well as anyone.

This is my view of the big part of the problem between the Islamic cultures in the Middle East and the secular west.

The Muslims are P***** off at their repressive Governments.(Turkey excluded)
We have been propping these repressive Governments up with arm sales and money. Why because we need the oil from the area and we like stability and yes dictatorships provide stability. They get angrier and angrier and more radicalized. You add Israel into the mix and you got a powder cage ready to explode. Next we vote in our ex-president who said and did every thing he could to make the situation worse.

Then we end up with our talking heads on the news who say things like "They hate us because of our freedom" The American public has such a poor knowledge of; History,Geography and foreign current events that they buy load this crap.

Muslims are not the only ones at fault, we have caused a large part of this problem.

There are two potential methods to keep this pot from boiling over:

-Hold the lid on the pot as it is boiling over. This will burn our hands.
-Turn off the stove. Lower the heat.

I believe the 2nd solution is much more rational.

Trouble is WY the world is now a global village we all have to interact in some way.
The west is guilty of putting themselves first most of the time( which is what the electorate expects of course) and many "Islamic" countires use the west as a bogey man to keep their populations looking west instead of inwards. The Palestinians are used as pawns by everyone in the so called "middle east peace process" Israel is the biggest smoke and mirrors trick employed by corrupt dictatorial "Islamic" regimes.
It suits many Arab leaders to have a common enemy and Isreal fits the bill perfectly. I have no doubt in my mind at all that if the Arab coutries really wanted a two state solution we would already have one, but they are to busy suppressing their own people whilst warning them of the Zionist conspiracy and the great satan at work..

 

[Metempsychosis]

However, there are no pagan polytheistic religions that called on armies to invade another kingdoms because their religions say so. Religion was never a factor as the cause of invasion for pagans. Invasions were solely politicial and territorial.

A funny fact is that when Islam came in contact Eastern religions,large scale idol-smashing took place.In response,the temples hid and exported their idols ,until the time Muslim rulers were defeated.

Do you know of single kingdom that invaded another, solely on the reason of their religion or for their gods?

You are right there are not many significant pagan invasion(which I can remember).But even among abrahamic religions only Christianity and Islam did large scale invasion just to spread the word of their God.Buddhism also did proselyzation during the time when Buddhist rulers were successful.But Buddhism being a syncretic religion they did not destroy the existing religions .

 

[Cordoba]

many "Islamic" countires use the west as a bogey man to keep their populations looking west instead of inwards.

That is true

If we are able on both sides to remove the negative factors that impact relations between ordinary people on both sides (like the media for example), relations would improve

One effort done for bridge building by a leading Turkish intellectual who now lives in the US, Mr. Gulen, is worthy of praise:

Fethullah Gülen's Web Site

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The Palestinians are used as pawns by everyone in the so called "middle east peace process" Israel is the biggest smoke and mirrors trick employed by corrupt dictatorial "Islamic" regimes.
It suits many Arab leaders to have a common enemy and Isreal fits the bill perfectly. I have no doubt in my mind at all that if the Arab coutries really wanted a two state solution we would already have one, but they are to busy suppressing their own people whilst warning them of the Zionist conspiracy and the great satan at work..

I also do not see the Arab states as having any great love for the Palestinians.

But.....

We must not lose sight of who are the repressors of the people of palestine.
From the Six Day War in June 1967 till the 1980s the Palestinians were in general a quite repressed people on the west bank. Yes the PLO went around the world engaging in Terrorism but, they were not living in Palestine. The Palestinians suffered in silence.
When the First Intifada broke out after 20 years of Apartheid. Save the Children estimated, 23,600 to 29,900 Palestinians children needed medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada, one third of whom were children under the age of ten years old.
We must remember that Palestinian people were killed in numbers 10 to 1 to the Israelis.

I will not defend the Terrorist extravaganza of the 2nd Intifada because the PLO made a choice between terrorism & peace. Like always the Palestinian leaders screw things up for its people.

Also take a look at the Ariel Sharon the Butcher of Beirut. Up to 3,000 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were killed by the Lebanese Christian militias. Even the Israeli Kahan Commission found Sharon personally responsible for the massacre. Yet the Israeli public elected this Butcher as their Prime Minister.

I feel for the Jews they have their backs up against a wall. I believe they need a homeland, this however is no excuse for their treatment of the Palestinian people.

 

[kai]

Palestinian / Israeli Issue is a Gordian knot the way to cleave it is politicaly not militarily.

 

[Caladan]

Not all Christian wars were do conversion. Many wars were justified with the potential to convert the heathen here are Just a few:

- Albigensian Crusade
-1-9 Crusades in the middle east
- Crusade of Nicopolis
- Crusade of Varna
-Crusade of 1456
-Swedish Crusade
- Wendish Crusade

The intense crusades into the middle east cannot be dismissed as an event within Christendom and as a purely religious goal. religion played a role, but its a non sequitur on many levels to claim that the crusades were conversion conquests. for example the crusades to the middle east had their first political move with the Byzantine call for assistance against the Muslim conquests (by the Seljuk Turks) into their lands, and of course the Reconquista in the Iberian peninsula bearing fruits after centuries of struggle.
there is a highly complicated geopolitical picture to be examined spanning various regions, with religion being one significant element in the whole picture.

The taking over of the New World was seen as a doing the "Indian Savages" a favor to convert them to Christianity. The same can be said of European Colonialism in places like Africa and Asia.

Taking over the new world was a quest for resources, forcing Christianity was implemented on a large scale (although it simply produced syncretism). but thinking that the discovery and conquests of the new world was with the prime goal of conversions into Christianity is strange. the initial interests was resources, territory.

 

[kai]

The intense crusades into the middle east cannot be dismissed as an event within Christendom and as a purely religious goal. religion played a role, but its a non sequitur on many levels to claim that the crusades were conversion conquests. for example the crusades to the middle east had their first political move with the Byzantine call for assistance against the Muslim conquests (by the Seljuk Turks) into their lands, and of course the Reconquista in the Iberian peninsula bearing fruits after centuries of struggle.
there is a highly complicated geopolitical picture to be examined spanning various regions, with religion being one significant element in the whole picture.

Taking over the new world was a quest for resources, forcing Christianity was implemented on a large scale (although it simply produced syncretism). but thinking that the discovery and conquests of the new world was with the prime goal of conversions into Christianity is strange. the initial interests was resources, territory.

great post i agree with you here, ran out of frubals!!!!!!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Taking over the new world was a quest for resources, forcing Christianity was implemented on a large scale (although it simply produced syncretism). but thinking that the discovery and conquests of the new world was with the prime goal of conversions into Christianity is strange. the initial interests was resources, territory.

If you read my post I said it was "Many wars were justified" not the only reason.
I do believe you are underestimating the religious interest of the conversion of the new world.

Let us go straight to the source material.

Christopher Columbus in a letter to Amerigo Vespucci said the following. "I feel persuaded by the many and wonderful manifestations of Divine Providence in my especial favor, that I am the chosen instrument of God in bringing to pass a great event-no less than the conversion of millions who are now existing in the darkness of sin."

 

[Caladan]

If you read my post I said it was "Many wars were justified" not the only reason.

From reading some of the previous posts, a few of you seemed to single out monotheism as a reason for military campaigns. this to me, seems to be more rooted in ideology than full geopolitical picture.

I do believe you are underestimating the religious interest of the conversion of the new world.

Let us go straight to the source material.

Christopher Columbus in a letter to Amerigo Vespucci said the following. "I feel persuaded by the many and wonderful manifestations of Divine Providence in my especial favor, that I am the chosen instrument of God in bringing to pass a great event-no less than the conversion of millions who are now existing in the darkness of sin."

There is no doubt that Columbus and the conquistadors were Christians, however their voyages were funded on the basis that their expeditions will provide resources and wealth. the conquistadors in their voyages were guided by the church to convert the locals to Christianity. I've stated that conversion was implemented on a large scale and it was a major interest by the church, however I do not hold Christianity as the sole prime mover for many of the aspects of historical episodes, Christianity might have been the ethos, but geopolitical realities, resources, territory, human resources all come into play. just as today there are many factors in global affairs: resources (such as oil and gas), territorial disputes, and religious ideologies.
the initial argument was that 'polytheistic armies did not go on such campaigns because their religion told them to', and my argument is that to single out such large campaigns and historical episodes as based on religion or rather Abrahamic monotheism alone is simply not accurate. there are factors that will always come into play.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The intense crusades into the middle east cannot be dismissed as an event within Christendom and as a purely religious goal. religion played a role, but its a non sequitur on many levels to claim that the crusades were conversion conquests.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I do believe that the crusades were religious in nature. I do not believe that religion was the only motive.

Pope Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals:

- Rescue the Christians of the East.
- Liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ

Both Goals were religious in nature.

Conversion is always a goal in Christendom. It is a back drop to all activities in the Christian church. I am actually more tolerant of this belief system then you might think. I do not understand why you are having such a problem with this concept. From the Christian point of view they are saving people from hell fire.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

From reading some of the previous posts, a few of you seemed to single out monotheism as a reason for military campaigns. this to me, seems to be more rooted in ideology than full geopolitical picture.

I do not believe I am one of them. One more time read my quote.

Not all Christian wars were do conversion. Many wars were justified with the potential to convert the heathen

I want to clean up my english but this would not be a great time to change the quote.