Islam & Women's Rights (With Quotes)

[JollyRoger]

naturally, considering its subject matter; but the difference is nowhere in the bible does it advocate violence against another, excepting a specific mandate in the old testament regarding a very speciic event. And in the new testament there is no compulsion to violence.

Unfortunately however the Quran does, the famous sword verses for example amongst others.

The New Testament is only a portion of the Christian Bible though.

 

[Ajidica]

Do you have a copy of Urban II's speech?

A full copy on me? No. (Of the full copies that exist, there are about three with equal authenticity that all have different versions of the speach.)
However, Urban did claim that Christ endorsed the crusade because when he told one of his disciples to put away his sword, he clearly intended it to be used again!

 

[El_Machinae]

You know, lots of people put the Koran into "early and later" interpretation, in order to make it sound more peaceful. I wonder if that can pick up in popularity? I think it's pretty clear that having a peaceful New Testament helps the theme of the entire Bible become more peaceful. More peaceful than it would be if the books were mixed more randomly!

 

[Jehoshua]

A full copy on me? No. (Of the full copies that exist, there are about three with equal authenticity that all have different versions of the speach.)
However, Urban did claim that Christ endorsed the crusade because when he told one of his disciples to put away his sword, he clearly intended it to be used again!

Thats hardly quoting the bible, what that is using a phrase and then anecdotally adding his own interpretation on it. Fortunately popes are only infallible when they speak ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals, since the incident in question was neither of those good Urban can most definitely be wrong.

Either way though the subject is quite moot since the crusades are justifiable as a defence agaisnt centuries of muslim aggression. You seem to forget that Spain got conquered, Rome itself was under threat and had previously been sacked and that Byzantium ahd requested aid for it was on the ropes all in the face of the muslim injunction to conquer the infidel by the sword. The crusades were hardly the baseless and meaningless violence certain groups portray them to be. Honestly I'm surprised it took 400 odd years for a reaction to emerge to begin with.

 

[civ_king]

Thats hardly quoting the bible, what that is using a phrase and then anecdotally adding his own interpretation on it. Fortunately popes are only infallible when they speak ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals, since the incident in question was neither of those good Urban can most definitely be wrong.

Either way though the subject is quite moot since the crusades are justifiable as a defence agaisnt centuries of muslim aggression. You seem to forget that Spain got conquered, Rome itself was under threat and had previously been sacked and that Byzantium ahd requested aid for it was on the ropes all in the face of the muslim injunction to conquer the infidel by the sword. The crusades were hardly the baseless and meaningless violence certain groups portray them to be. Honestly I'm surprised it took 400 odd years for a reaction to emerge to begin with.

Don't forget the horror stories pilgrims came back with, if they came back...

 

[Ajidica]

Either way though the subject is quite moot since the crusades are justifiable as a defence agaisnt centuries of muslim aggression. You seem to forget that Spain got conquered,

It was conquered from the Visigoths. Your point? Conquests by foreign powers against another do not a 'unified islamic threat' make. The Ummayad Caliphate in Spain had no coordination with the Ummayads back in Damascus. After the Ummayad Caliphate in Damascus collapsed, the Ummayads in Spain were actively hostile to the Abbasids.

Rome itself was under threat and had previously been sacked

Rome has never been sacked by Muslims and was never sacked by Pagans in the Common Era. All sackings in the Common Era have been done by Christians. Goths, Goths again, Vandals, Byzantines, Lombards (I think), Normans, more people, the Germans, and so on.

and that Byzantium ahd requested aid for it was on the ropes all in the face of the muslim injunction to conquer the infidel by the sword.

The Turkoman raiders taking over Anatolia were not part of any 'coordinated' Muslim group and their conversion to Islam was superficial at best. Furthermore, the whole reason the Turkoman raiders even made it to Iconium was because Byzantium was in a state of civil war. The only thing that differed between the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and the Turkoman migration into Anatolia was that the Turkomans were Muslim.

The crusades were hardly the baseless and meaningless violence certain groups portray them to be. Honestly I'm surprised it took 400 odd years for a reaction to emerge to begin with.

Clash of civilization narratives are historical onanism at best.

 

[Jehoshua]

It was conquered from the Visigoths. Your point? Conquests by foreign powers against another do not a 'unified islamic threat' make. The Ummayad Caliphate in Spain had no coordination with the Ummayads back in Damascus. After the Ummayad Caliphate in Damascus collapsed, the Ummayads in Spain were actively hostile to the Abbasids.

A unified islamic opposition was never mentioned, a general trend of islamic aggression a that time is another thing

Rome has never been sacked by Muslims and was never sacked by Pagans in the Common Era. All sackings in the Common Era have been done by Christians. Goths, Goths again, Vandals, Byzantines, Lombards (I think), Normans, more people, the Germans, and so on.

read your history books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(846)

The Turkoman raiders taking over Anatolia were not part of any 'coordinated' Muslim group and their conversion to Islam was superficial at best. Furthermore, the whole reason the Turkoman raiders even made it to Iconium was because Byzantium was in a state of civil war. The only thing that differed between the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and the Turkoman migration into Anatolia was that the Turkomans were Muslim.

Funnily enough before the first crusade the seljuk turks had establish an empire, aptly named the great seljuk empire, which was succeeded in anatolia around the second half of the 11th century by the ironically named Sultanate of Rum, they had long since passed from being wandering bands of nomadic raiders. And as I mentioned before although Islam wasn;t unified it was part of a general trend of islamic aggression.

Clash of civilization narratives are historical onanism at best.

I am not talking about a clash of civilisations. All I am saying is that considering the long history of islamic aggression Im surprised no such action as the crusades didn;t occur earlier, even on the part of individual states.

Either way though from your responses you seem to have a sub-optimal grasp of history, I would suggest you research more before making baseless claims (such as regarding the arab sack of rome)

 

[aelf]

naturally, considering its subject matter; but the difference is nowhere in the bible does it advocate violence against another, excepting a specific mandate in the old testament regarding a very speciic event. And in the new testament there is no compulsion to violence.

Unfortunately however the Quran does, the famous sword verses for example amongst others.

I suppose you also believe that literal interpretations of texts determine peoples' beliefs and behaviour. What a sad world you live in.

 

[Ajidica]

A unified islamic opposition was never mentioned, a general trend of islamic aggression a that time is another thing

One can make the same argument with the Christians in the Baltic and Bulgaria.

read your history books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(846)

I stand corrected. However, does one raid by a group considered to be pirates equate to any sort of organized campaign? Rome was sacked by organized Christian groups more often then it was sacked by a group of pirates.
Even though Muslims did sack it once, what then?

Funnily enough before the first crusade the seljuk turks had establish an empire, aptly named the great seljuk empire,

It was the Seljuks of Rum. The Great Seljuks had discintigrated prior to the Crusades. That is why the Crusaders were able to do so well in the Levant. The Great Suljuks had collapsed and the Fatimids were doing something that I don't recall.

they had long since passed from being wandering bands of nomadic raiders.

Again, the Turkomans that first migrated into Anatolia were the nomads. Later they set themselves up as various kings.

And as I mentioned before although Islam wasn;t unified it was part of a general trend of islamic aggression.

'General trend of Islamic agressiveness' means what exactly? As far as I can see the situation was 'a bunch of disparate groups who happened to be Muslim took advantage of a power vacuum left by the Byzantines and the Sassanids and did very well for themselves'. Afterwards, the situation in the Middle East with Byzantium and the Caliphate was little different from the situation with the Shahanshah except here the primary foe of Byzantium were Muslims.

I am not talking about a clash of civilisations. All I am saying is that considering the long history of islamic aggression Im surprised no such action as the crusades didn;t occur earlier, even on the part of individual states.

Why would there need to be a crusade against Muslims beforehand? Byzantium was doing fine for itself, early Carolingian France was doing well for itself, and so on.
Additionaly, the theological underpinnings needed for the Crusade hadn't existed until Gregory had emphasized the idea of temporal as well as spiritual supremacy.

 

[Jehoshua]

I suppose you also believe that literal interpretations of texts determine peoples' beliefs and behaviour. What a sad world you live in.

Thankfully that sad world is not one I live in.

All I am saying is that there is an injunction to violence in the Quran, this therefore establishes a mandate for violent acts which are not truly justifiable under any other religion. Thus although many muslims are decent people a proportion of them due to this injuction can easily and licitly justify violence using quranic texts which unambiguously support their actions. This is even more so considering the lack of governing authority in the Islamic religion to regulate islamic jurisprudence.

It is no accident that Islam is more prone than other religions to extremism, ergo the near ubiquity of islamic fundamentalism amongst a proportion of the population wherether Islam is found. Does that mean all muslims are terrorists, No, definitely not, but does that mean that Islam via the Quran is prone to extremist interpretation, yes.

-

incidentally I would suggest refraining from assumptions about an individual before making comments.

 

[JollyRoger]

but does that mean that Islam via the Quran is prone to extremist interpretation, yes.

As is Christianity via the Bible.

 

[Jehoshua]

One can make the same argument with the Christians in the Baltic and Bulgaria.

One could, fortunately however the injunction is not there and we see in both cases a very secular temporal reason for attacks on both regions. ie the expansionism of the teutonic state and the wish of Byzantium to reclaim lost territory.

I stand corrected. However, does one raid by a group considered to be pirates equate to any sort of organized campaign? Rome was sacked by organized Christian groups more often then it was sacked by a group of pirates.
Even though Muslims did sack it once, what then?

Sicily and southern Italy were under islamic rule at the time in question, and incidentally it takes more than a band of pirates to pillage a city, it takes an army, thus even though they were piratic in that they plundered for wealth, in form they required for such cohesion interior organisation and strength and the support of political powers. And likewise as I said it was simply a symptom of a general trend throughout all areas of the islamic world

It was the Seljuks of Rum. The Great Seljuks had discintigrated prior to the Crusades. That is why the Crusaders were able to do so well in the Levant. The Great Suljuks had collapsed and the Fatimids were doing something that I don't recall.

I would appreciate it if you didn;t excise the rest of my quote which explicitly mentioned the Sultunate of Rum as being in place at that time, notice I said the GSS existed BEFORE the first crusade

Again, the Turkomans that first migrated into Anatolia were the nomads. Later they set themselves up as various kings.

thus prior to the crusades and irrelevant to this discussion

'General trend of Islamic agressiveness' means what exactly? As far as I can see the situation was 'a bunch of disparate groups who happened to be Muslim took advantage of a power vacuum left by the Byzantines and the Sassanids and did very well for themselves'. Afterwards, the situation in the Middle East with Byzantium and the Caliphate was little different from the situation with the Shahanshah except here the primary foe of Byzantium were Muslims.

If you look at islamic history basically every region currently occupied by a dominantly muslim population was conquered by the sword. The Islamic world at that time generally, although under for the most part no uniform authority expanded militarily. This was justified under islamic law expounding the spread of Islam in addition ot purely temporal goals.

Why would there need to be a crusade against Muslims beforehand? Byzantium was doing fine for itself, early Carolingian France was doing well for itself, and so on. Additionaly, the theological underpinnings needed for the Crusade hadn't existed until Gregory had emphasized the idea of temporal as well as spiritual supremacy.

I am not talking about a crusade specifically rather than a counter-action in light of the regularity of islamic incursions into christian europe. Even more so considering that prior to the first crusade the fatimids under an ill-advised caliph burned down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a shrine of extreme significance at the time and to a lesser extent also to this day

 

[Jehoshua]

As is Christianity via the Bible.

I have mentined this elsewhere, there is no injunction to general violence in the Bible. The sole justifications are in regards to specific incidents concerning the israelites in the old testament towards a specific group of people and a specific requirement. Nowhere does it say, slay the infidel as a general commandment.

perhaps for your sake I should say that Islam is prone to violence due to the explicit teaching unambiguously worded and clearly expressed in the Quran in regards to general violence towards non-muslims.

 

[Ajidica]

One could, fortunately however the injunction is not there and we see in both cases a very secular temporal reason for attacks on both regions. ie the expansionism of the teutonic state

So Christian Expansion under the Teutonics, a Christian military order, who spent most of their time attacking fellow Christians: Good.
Muslim princes fighting some other group who may or may not have been part of their religion: Bad.

And likewise as I said it was simply a symptom of a general trend throughout all areas of the islamic world

And I suppose the Norman sack in 1084 was a symptom of a general trend of Norman agressiveness?
You can make a better case for Norman Agressiveness then Muslim. In a few decades they humbled the Capetians, conquered England, conquered Southern Italy and Sicily, conquered Illyria and seriously threatened the security of the Byzantine Empire at a level unmatched in its history except during civil wars, and established several states in the Outremer.

 

[Jehoshua]

So Christian Expansion under the Teutonics, a Christian military order, who spent most of their time attacking fellow Christians: Good.
Muslim princes fighting some other group who may or may not have been part of their religion: Bad.

The baltics at this time were pagan, neither do I justify their violence, merely acknowledge that they had temporal reasons for their violence which they justified under the banner of religion, which in this particular scenario were of questionable legitimacy. One must remember that the teutonic states had considerable interests in the baltics commercially and strategically which were threatened by the rise of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

And I suppose the Norman sack in 1084 was a symptom of a general trend of Norman agressiveness? You can make a better case for Norman Agressiveness then Muslim. In a few decades they humbled the Capetians, conquered England, conquered Southern Italy and Sicily, conquered Illyria and seriously threatened the security of the Byzantine Empire at a level unmatched in its history except during civil wars, and established several states in the Outremer.

The Normans were an aggressive bunch of people, I never denied that, fortunately their expansion excluding perhaps those who participated in the crusades was never justified under the banner of religion. Even the Pope had conflicts with them due to their militaristic tendencies.

 

[Ajidica]

The baltics at this time were pagan, neither do I justify their violence, merely acknowledge that they had temporal reasons for their violence which they justified under the banner of crusades, which in this particular scenario were of questionable legitimacy.

And the Muslim Princes can't have temporal reasons?

The Normans were an aggressive bunch of people, I never denied that fortunately their expansion excluding perhaps those who participated in the crusades was never justified under the banner of religion. Even the Pope had conflicts with them.

Yes, the Pope had conflicts with them and in under a a few decades they had made their presence known and had shook the foundations of both the Romans and the Caliphates yet I don't see you deriding them for 'a general trend of Christian expansion'.

 

[Jehoshua]

And the Muslim Princes can't have temporal reasons?

of course they can, but the massive wave of conquest post-muhammad was derived from the desire to spread Islam. Naturally temporal benefits resulted but religion played an extremely important part in the Islamic expansion.

Yes, the Pope had conflicts with them and in under a a few decades they had made their presence known and had shook the foundations of both the Romans and the Caliphates yet I don't see you deriding them for 'a general trend of Christian expansion'.

Hardly a general trend when you have one people, one nation being inordinately aggressive. For it to be general you would have to have the vast majority of christians engaged in a wave of militant expansion and territorial conquest under the premise of christianity which simply never occured. Islam spread from a small centre of origin to a vast territory via conquest in an unprecedentedly short period of time. This sword driven wave of conversion from tiny beginnings is absent in the history of any other religion.

 

[Ajidica]

of course they can, but the massive wave of conquest post-muhammad was derived from the desire to spread Islam. Naturally temporal benefits resulted but religion played an extremely important part in the Islamic expansion.

And the Teutonics weren't driven by a desire to do the will of God? The Conquistadores weren't driven by a desire to do the word of God? Need I go on? Religion plays a massive part in any large scale conquest as it is a unifying agent for a mass movement.

Hardly a general trend when you have one people, one nation being inordinately aggressive. For it to be general you would have to have the vast majority of christians engaged in a wave of militant expansion and territorial conquest under the premise of christianity which simply never occured.

So being constantly involved in petty wars against your neighbor over land in the name of God isn't militant? Or are you only counting militant expansion? I suppose then killing each other over nothing is better then killing each other over something.

Islam spread from a small centre of origin to a vast territory via conquest in an unprecedentedly short period of time. This sword driven wave of conversion from tiny beginnings is absent in the history of any other religion.

There are many factors that lead to Islam being a major religion. The sucess of their conquests is just a part in the same way Constantine's conversion at Milvan Bridge against Maxentius was the sword driving Christian faith. Especialy when you look at Constantine's later actions against Licinius and Maximin Daia.

 

[aelf]

Thankfully that sad world is not one I live in.

All I am saying is that there is an injunction to violence in the Quran, this therefore establishes a mandate for violent acts which are not truly justifiable under any other religion. Thus although many muslims are decent people a proportion of them due to this injuction can easily and licitly justify violence using quranic texts which unambiguously support their actions. This is even more so considering the lack of governing authority in the Islamic religion to regulate islamic jurisprudence.

The lack of governing authority is a good thing, because it means Muslims are not bound by any particular interpretation or school of thought. It's all fine and well if the hegemonic or dominant school of thought is benign, but what if it isn't? Someone like you would be screaming about the violent and totalitarian nature of the religion.

Your reply to the injunction to violence in the Bible, IIRC, is the New Testament. But Jesus himself seem to have said that he had not come to invalidate the OT. And, AFAIK, the NT only brings about a new covenant, not to nullify everything that had been said in the OT. So what gives?

It is no accident that Islam is more prone than other religions to extremism, ergo the near ubiquity of islamic fundamentalism amongst a proportion of the population wherether Islam is found. Does that mean all muslims are terrorists, No, definitely not, but does that mean that Islam via the Quran is prone to extremist interpretation, yes.

-

incidentally I would suggest refraining from assumptions about an individual before making comments.

Um, well, you just went on to affirm what I said about you.

I mean, tell us why "it is no accident that Islam is more prone than other religions to extremism". The only line of reasoning that leads you to this conclusion stems from what is written in the text. You can quibble all you want about not saying that all Muslims are necessarily extremists, but as long as you are implying a general tendency, you're still still making a generalisation that hangs by the textual thread (which is completely contrary to what is known about how communities operationalise their beliefs). As a close analogy, consider the statement that black people tend to be violent, although not all of them actually are. Does the caveat make the statement any less ignorant?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Catholics are true evil of that earth. They inherently hate true Christian, Orthodox states, and dismantle them. Look what happened to Byzantium in 1204, when vile, greedy, money-obsessed Catholics attacked it and wanted to convert it to Catholicism - that God that the Romioi refused to be converted. Truly, the Sultan' Turban (which oppressed the body) was better for them then the Pope's Mitre (which oppressed the soul). Poland, that traitor to Slavic peoples, hated Russia for a long time, and plotted against it, and wanted to convert it to Catholicism during the Time of Troubles. Thank God Sigismund III's evil plan was thwarted by the Russian People! All these evil plans I mentioned were justified by the Catholics' religion. It is no accident that Catholics hate the Orthodox, true Christian states so much, and are so aggressive towards them. The trend of aggression I demonstrated proves it