If "the West" is nice, 500 mil. Islamists won't push for Sharia??

[icehorse]

Yes, I have "no idea" when you've made numerous threads about your suspicions of Islam.

"suspicions of" and "ignorance of" are two very different things.

Tell me, when you studied the Quran, what conclusions did you draw? How about when you studied biographies of Muhammad? How do the Hadith strike you? What are your thoughts about recent world-wide polling of Muslims? Do you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a valid perspective on Islam? And tell me, in your numerous debates with Muslims, how often do you find they concede that the Quran is imperfect and/or that Muhammad was not the perfect role model? What conclusions do you draw concerning the spread of Islam over the last 1400 years? Got any opinions on the Hindu genocide? How do you compare the crusades when stacked up against the 400 years of conquest that preceded them? What conclusions do you draw concerning Europe's recent difficulties with Muslim immigrants? What are your thoughts about the link between the Muslim Brotherhood and the fact that about 600 Muslim Student Association chapters exist in US colleges and universities? What's your take on FGM in terms of whether it's an African cultural thing or whether its origins are from Islam? What's your conclusion when you study how Muslim majority countries consistently squeeze out other religions? Why is it, do you think, that Muslim societies have such dismal records in terms of academics, invention, and innovation? (Oh wait, I bet I know your answer to this one, is it: "because colonialism"?) After studying the curriculums of various Madrasas, what conclusions do you draw? How do you assess the opinions of Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, and Maajid Nawaz, are they all off-base? What conclusions do you draw when you compare the UDHR against the CDHRI?

 

[Augustus]

Got any opinions on the Hindu genocide?

That there wasn't one?

Not that the conquests and Empire were all sweetness and light, but like most ancient death tolls, the numbers are vastly inflated and it would be incorrect to label it a genocide.

 

[icehorse]

That there wasn't one?

Not that the conquests and Empire were all sweetness and light, but like most ancient death tolls, the numbers are vastly inflated and it would be incorrect to label it a genocide.

What number would you be comfortable with?

(edited addition): How do you define genocide?

 

[Augustus]

What number would you be comfortable with?

I'm never comfortable with historical numbers. They tend to become 'received wisdom' because they just get repeated over and over again (often from old sources), but are rarely based on anything remotely scientific.

There is a consistent trend that these numbers are vastly overstated. This results from the oppressors overstating their actions to act as propaganda and cow the conquered people, the victims overstating the evilness of the oppressors, or simply from the woeful ability of those in the past to accurately estimate large numbers. In fact, there was little attempt to be accurate as they had absolutely no way of knowing, it was just to illustrate a large (or very large) number.

A lot of people were killed no doubt, but a lot of people died in all kinds of wars, especially when they rose up against the ruling powers as they had to be made an example of.

Also, figures shouldn't be taken in a vacuum. Had there been no invasion, millions would have died in wars anyway as the local rulers fought each other across the centuries involved. People tend to forget that the alternatives were not exactly pacifist humanitarians either, even if they might have been less brutal overall.

So a lot of people were killed, some rulers were much worse than others, and it should really be seen as multiple events rather than a single event.

Also trying to draw too many conclusions about 'Islam' is difficult. For example, Timur saw himself as the heir to their legacy of Ghenghis Khan, how many fewer would have died if he was a Tengriist like the person he was 'emulating'?

While you don't want to whitewash history, you also don't want to be too essentialist either. All societies with power were generally conquest motivated and were willing to use extreme violence.

(edited addition): How do you define genocide?

The purposeful and systematic attempt to wipe out a particular group of people.

History is full of mass killings, very few of them were genocides.

 

[icehorse]

I'm never comfortable with historical numbers. They tend to become 'received wisdom' because they just get repeated over and over again (often from old sources), but are rarely based on anything remotely scientific.

There is a consistent trend that these numbers are vastly overstated.

Ok, so instead of 80 million Hindus murdered, perhaps we could say 8 million?

And, if it helps, I'm happy to amend my earlier post from "genocide" to "mass murder". Although I suspect that in this case, it was frequently the intention of the Muslim invaders to "wipe out" the Hindus, I think my point stands regardless.

 

[Notanumber]

Is John right to ask what’s going on?

 

[Augustus]

Ok, so instead of 80 million Hindus murdered, perhaps we could say 8 million?

That would be reasonable. If it is lower than that it would probably not be by much, and if it was more it might be a fair bit more. Also many historical deaths attributed to warfare were caused by knock on effects such as famine or disease which muddies the water a bit more.

40,000 a year though is a bit different to 8 million in terms of perspective. Remember war and conquest were the norm across all cultures too, and famine and disease still happened.

And, if it helps, I'm happy to amend my earlier post from "genocide" to "mass murder". Although I suspect that in this case, it was frequently the intention of the Muslim invaders to "wipe out" the Hindus, I think my point stands regardless.

Well it was generally the point to wipe out those who you went to war with and who posed a threat to your rule, and most of these were indeed Hindus.

That they made a systematic attempt to wipe out Hinduism is not really sustainable.

With someone like Timur, why do you give 'credit' to the Muslim side of his identity rather than his Mongol side? Tengriists were religiously tolerant and were still pretty partial to mass murder.

Historically Islam was a conquest ideology, but this needs to be contextualised with the fact that so was almost everybody else.

 

[Notanumber]

The BBC said in a programme this afternoon stated that the numbers of people that left London last year was double that of the previous year.

Is this an example of the ‘white flight’ mentioned in the video (5:30 in) above?

 

[Yerda]

There are roughly 500 million Muslims in the world who believe that we should all be ruled by Sharia.

I believe that they should all live in secular liberal democracies. I think my idea is better.

 

[Notanumber]

Is this site telling the truth?

SHARIA LAW — LIST OF KEY RULES — What Is Sharia Law?

 

[idav]

Is this site telling the truth?

SHARIA LAW — LIST OF KEY RULES — What Is Sharia Law?

The important question is who practices death penalty. You can take Canada, France Spain and UK off that list and just leave US with the rest of the "justice" oriented countries, Iran, Tailand etc.