What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[Funky]

I don't really think any conquest was "unjustified" back than.

Now that is certainly a unique, if not to say morally dubious stance to take.

I don't really see what makes you think Historians are saying it all went smoothly.

They don't! Read, for example, Jaya Gopal's monumental book on the history of Islam. But the research of historians on the deaths and suffering related to Islamic jihad are not part of the public narrative, which I was commenting on.

Now you are advancing figures to make us think those atrocities (250millions than "just" 100million dead) were worse than those of the Crusaders and some how justified the latter (how so?)

In light of the bulk of territories being conquered in the early jihad, going down to less than half of the estimated total deaths seems modest enough. And come on, I don't have to point out that conquering the Arab peninsula, the whole Near and Middle East up to India, the entire North and large parts of East Africa, and the Iberian peninsula over period of 150 years caused orders of magnitude more deaths than a couple of geographically restricted attacks by crusaders, depsite the horrendous atrocities they committed. And I never said that the crusades were justified by previous killings.

hum, It has been decades since I stopped learning my History from school books, I'm close to 50 . I don't learn my History about the Crusades from Foxnews.com or Aljazeera.com either

I'm glad to hear. Yet when I give the background to the crusades you are inclined to call it historical revionism, which is following the narrative in school books. By the way, I never called the crusades defensive wars.

Advancing “facts” about Muslims from Pegida.com is as wise as advancing “facts” about Jews from Hamas.com or about African Americans from KKK.com, it won’t have any kind of credibility as you know. Those websites are not historical websites but political ones.

Have I referenced any such website? At all? That you think that I get information on the topic from political websites says more about yourself than it does about me.


To be honest, I have no desire to continue this conversation. You have tossed out three strawmen in your last post. I want to have a civil discussion, not engage in a battle of deliberate misunderstanding. It seems that our conversation in the other thread is going much better. Considering that I still haven't addressed many of your points over there and that we both assumably don't have unlimited time, I'd suggest we focus on that discussion.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Now that is certainly a unique, if not to say morally dubious stance to take.

Go ahead, name one King that conquered a land that wasn't "rightfully" his and one conquering a land that was "rightfully" his? and by the way I would be interested in how you'll define right in this context.

They don't! Read, for example, Jaya Gopal's monumental book on the history of Islam. But the research of historians on the deaths and suffering related to Islamic jihad are not part of the public narrative, which I was commenting on.

What makes you think they did not read Jaya Gopal's book? maybe they did and they do not consider his work worthwhile or maybe it's just outside of the program. My kids do not learn about Leopold bloody conquest of Congo, I am not yelling school history courses are biased against congolese and are belgiophile. They are tought about the birth of Islam indeed, in 1 hour course, they talk about muslim expansion the same way they talk about Alexander's conquest and the Roman conquest. they don't mention massacres in all cases, I guess because the school is hellenophile, romanophile and islamophile but deeply christophobe

In light of the bulk of territories being conquered in the early jihad, going down to less than half of the estimated total deaths seems modest enough. And come on, I don't have to point out that conquering the Arab peninsula, the whole Near and Middle East up to India, the entire North and large parts of East Africa, and the Iberian peninsula over period of 150 years caused orders of magnitude more deaths than a couple of geographically restricted attacks by crusaders, depsite the horrendous atrocities they committed. And I never said that the crusades were justified by previous killings.

no it's more like going down to less than half of the number of total deaths I invented or took from Pegida.com because you still gave no serious source for the figures you are giving.
And you did indeed say that the crusades were justified by previous killings: your words “I am criticisizing the one-sidedness of history books, and pointing out that the crusades can be justified in light of the far worse Islamic conquests”

I'm glad to hear. Yet when I give the background to the crusades you are inclined to call it historical revionism, which is following the narrative in school books. By the way, I never called the crusades defensive wars .

You are not giving background to the Crusades, you are posting unverifiable figures with no sources to back them, apart from the allegedly bias of western historian and school books against Christianity and in favor of Islam.

Have I referenced any such website? At all? That you think that I get information on the topic from political websites says more about yourself than it does about me. .

Oh, the kind of things you are exposing are indeed the kind of things you’ll find on Pegida, foxnews and co. It’s OK, it’s your right, but don’t expect me to take those seriously as I won’t take seriously someone directing me to Aljazeera or hamas.com in a discussion about Israel.
And I just realized you did indeed direct me to thereligionofpeace.com, come on.

To be honest, I have no desire to continue this conversation. You have tossed out three strawmen in your last post. I want to have a civil discussion, not engage in a battle of deliberate misunderstanding. It seems that our conversation in the other thread is going much better. Considering that I still haven't addressed many of your points over there and that we both assumably don't have unlimited time, I'd suggest we focus on that discussion.

Koran says “there is no compulsion in religion”, so I am going to tell you “No compulsion to debate”

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was the policy of the U.S. Government to hinder the Japanese war effort by everything short of war. Roosevelt, and the people close to him catastrophically misjudged what that entailed (Roosevelt himself thought he could get away with blockading Japan without causing a war.)

I agree, except for the part that Roosevelt thought he could do all this without causing Japan to declare war. I think it was quite intentional. He wanted to get us into WWII.

I have stated numerous times in this forum that the US forced Japan to declare war due to the direct actions of he Roosevelt administration. The only surprise was that the initial attack was at Pearl Harbor instead of the Dutch East Indies or the Philippines.

For that matter, we should have never been so surprised at Pearl Harbor either. We knew they had a formidable navy that had just suddenly "disappeared" for the most part. We knew that the Japanese were in the process of receiving and decoding a lengthy message that was likely a declaration of war. And if you believe Tora, Tora, Tora, at least some of our military analysts had come to the conclusion that Pearl Harbor was quite likely the initial target.

"The day that shall live in infamy" was really due to the foreign policy machinations and blunders by the US government. If we had learned the proper lesson on December 7, 1941, perhaps September 11, 2001 would not have occurred.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The charge of the light brigade. The charge achieved its objective and would have likely been a battle winning event if they got the back up they expected and requested.

I admit being one of those who was told otherwise. Since I read your comment, I have been reading up on the process of the mythmaking.

Thanks!

 

[Funky]

“No compulsion to debate”

I enjoy civil debates, and am glad to keep our discussion going in the other thread. I despise misrepresentation and slur, which have both occured in this conversation.

An example of anew misrepresentation is

And you did indeed say that the crusades were justified by previous killings: your words “I am criticisizing the one-sidedness of history books, and pointing out that the crusades can be justified in light of the far worse Islamic conquests”

While I admit to have not worded it ideally, it must be clear to you that I am not saying the crusades can be justified because the Muslims were slaughtering Hindus. Obviously I was refering to the conquests in and around Europe.

And an example of slur,

And I just realized you did indeed direct me to thereligionofpeace.com, come on.

Thereligionofpeace is an excellent educational site, whose operators are doing tremendous work to gather facts about Islam, like opinion polls, koran verses, a list of terror attacks, and links to news articles on various aspects of the topic. It is not a political site. They are very critical of the ideology of Islam, as every sane person should be, but they go into great lenghts to distinguish criticism of the ideology from criticism of people. Some quotes from the site:

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran.

Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know.

Muslims are individuals. We passionately believe that no Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.

Koran says “there is no compulsion in religion”

This is an excellent verse, and the Quilliam Foundation has made it one of the starting points to help reform the faith and make it compatible with the modern world. Unfortunately, it is in the Mekka part of the koran and is in contradiction with the violent verses which are largely in the Medina part, and is therefore abrogated by these verses in the mainstream orthodox interpretation. But verses like this give hope, and we can talk about it more in the other thread.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I enjoy civil debates, and am glad to keep our discussion going in the other thread. I despise misrepresentation and slur, which have both occured in this conversation.
An example of anew misrepresentation is
While I admit to have not worded it ideally, it must be clear to you that I am not saying the crusades can be justified because the Muslims were slaughtering Hindus. Obviously I was refering to the conquests in and around Europe.

Well apologies for misrepresenting your not ideally worded posts , I can read only what you write
So if you were to word it ideally it would be "Crusades were justified by Muslim conquests in and around Europe". How so? and you still did not answer my question about what you mean by "Justified".

And an example of slur,
Thereligionofpeace is an excellent educational site, whose operators are doing tremendous work to gather facts about Islam, like opinion polls, koran verses, a list of terror attacks, and links to news articles on various aspects of the topic. It is not a political site. They are very critical of the ideology of Islam, as every sane person should be, but they go into great lenghts to distinguish criticism of the ideology from criticism of people. Some quotes from the site:

Good for you to think Thereligionofpeace is an excellent educational site. The quotes from the site:

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.
We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran.
Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know.
Muslims are individuals. We passionately believe that no Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.

Remind me of quotes from homophobic hate sites stating “Hate the sin not the sinner” and other BS. I don’t buy it.

This is an excellent verse, and the Quilliam Foundation has made it one of the starting points to help reform the faith and make it compatible with the modern world. Unfortunately, it is in the Mekka part of the koran and is in contradiction with the violent verses which are largely in the Medina part, and is therefore abrogated by these verses in the mainstream orthodox interpretation. But verses like this give hope, and we can talk about it more in the other thread.

No the verse is from the Medina part of the Koran (stop taking "facts" from
Thereligionofpeace).
Abrogation is a complex topic and scholars do not have the same interpretation about it. You want to side with the fundamuntalist interpretation, it is again your opinion (it won't be your first extremist one ). Just don't think that extremist views are the truth, and that applies to various issues

 

[Funky]

Good for you to think Thereligionofpeace is an excellent educational site. The quotes from the site:

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.
We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran.
Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know.
Muslims are individuals. We passionately believe that no Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.

Remind me of quotes from homophobic hate sites stating “Hate the sin not the sinner” and other BS. I don’t buy it.

I am sorry, but this pretty much disqualifies you from any further conversation. You reject the site because of your pre-conceived view. That, my friend, is bigotry. When the site even repeatedly condemns the stereotyping and harrassing of Muslims, and your only response is to say that they are lying, that is slur. When you reject the facts that it offers, polls which are all hyperlinked, koran verses which can all be looked up, terror attacks which can all be googled, then you show that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Those who disagree with this hate-filled rhetoric are engaging in "bigotry".

Those who disagree with clearly Islamphophbic propaganda are engaging in "slurs".

Those who don't think this utter nonsense is "fact" are "not interested in an honest discussion".

Gee, what a surprise, as yet another CFC regular is "disqualified" from even discussing the matter in a cogent and rational manner.

 

[Arakhor]

I am sorry, but this pretty much disqualifies you from any further conversation. You reject the site because of your pre-conceived view. That, my friend, is bigotry. When the site even repeatedly condemns the stereotyping and harrassing of Muslims, and your only response is to say that they are lying, that is slur. When you reject the facts that it offers, polls which are all hyperlinked, koran verses which can all be looked up, terror attacks which can all be googled, then you show that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

Would you still defend the site if all the references, citations and verses instead referred to, say, homosexuality?

 

[Funky]

Would you still defend the site if all the references, citations and verses instead referred to, say, homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not an ideology. Your question makes no sense.

 

[Arakhor]

Homosexuality is not an ideology. Your question makes no sense.

Then replace "ideology" with "behaviour" or "lifestyle". You'd have a website telling people to judge the facts of homosexuality for themselves, those acts committed by people who identified as homosexual, pro- or anti-homosexual legislation and so on, as well as the same warnings about not mistreating or shaming anyone for being homosexual because they are still human, even though every sane person should be critical of the homosexual lifestyle.

Such a website would still come across as obsessive and creepy at the very least.

 

[chijohnaok]

You see, "jihad", "war" and "conquest" are three entirely different matters, especially to many Muslims. How much "jihad" did the Romans do? How much did the British do? How much do the Americans continue to do?

Or perhaps a better question would be which Islamophobic hate site did you get your definition of "jihad" from?

IF that comment was directed at me, I do not recall offering a definintion for "jihad".

As for where I obtained that list of jihads/wars/conquests events from, it was from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia".

 

[Arakhor]

As for where I obtained that list of jihads/wars/conquests events from, it was from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia".

All of which were done by various rulers, as is the way of the world. Are you suggesting that we have to condemn every religion (and every war!) in the world because one of their adherents ruled a country who made war on its neighbours or does it only count when the combatant nations have different state religions?

 

[abradley]

Going back to the first page of this thread, post #20, where I posted at the bottem:"

The internet is a wonder, why? Because when I was young (40's-50's) there wasn't a way to check whether things you heard were factual or not. So when somebody said 'They were the Dark Ages because the Church suppress any scientific thought' you were stuck with it, factual or not. Now with the internet the world and its knowledge is wide open to us. That's why I was worried when I read
Quote:
"US relaxes grip on the internet"
, here comes a true dark age.

But the Obama admin came to it's senses. Can you imagine an internet controlled by Red China or ME Muslim countries!

So it's amazing how many 'truths' were falsehoods since I've had access to the 'net'.

Pray it stays wide open.

Well Dr. Pipes seems to agree, maybe:

Muslim apostates exit even in Saudi Arabia
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/214875

{Snip}
What does all of this mean? I really do not know but I suspect that one great plus about the internet is that it is allowing peoples voices to be heard and that the Ulama indeed have a real challenge to face but would any of this change Islam? As Muslims would say only Allahu A3lam

The whole article is worth a read, the video is worth a watch (this linked copy seems to be only Arabic, have seen an correct Eng Subbed version elsewhere, sorry), and there some interesting comments plus links.

 

[Formaldehyde]

IF that comment was directed at me, I do not recall offering a definintion for "jihad".

As for where I obtained that list of jihads/wars/conquests events from, it was from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia".

That was what was being discussed, and what you even referred to in your own post.

And no, you weren't "offering a definition for "jihad". You were apparently objecting to the one "from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia"".

 

[abradley]

All of which were done by various rulers, as is the way of the world. Are you suggesting that we have to condemn every religion (and every war!) in the world because one of their adherents ruled a country who made war on its neighbours or does it only count when the combatant nations have different state religions?

The list is during the time of the Caliphate, there's a very good chance the the Caliph gave his stamp of approval on those he didn't order.

IIRC During the Barbary Pirate Era the US sent tribute to the Pirates for ship protection, the Pirates refuse to accept it and demanded the tribute be taken directly to the Caliph.

There were periods when areas rejected the Caliph's authority, like in Spain, but over all he was the head of Islam.

 

[Ajidica]

The list is during the time of the Caliphate, there's a very good chance the the Caliph gave his stamp of approval on those he didn't order.

IIRC During the Barbary Pirate Era the US sent tribute to the Pirates for ship protection, the Pirates refuse to accept it and demanded the tribute be taken directly to the Caliph.

There were periods when areas rejected the Caliph's authority, like in Spain, but over all he was the head of Islam.

The Byzantine Emperor was considered to be the Vice-Gerent of God, Equal to the Apostles, and Head of the Christian Church. Does it then make sense to ascribe to Christianity the death and devastation that ravaged Italy during Justinian's Italian Wars? The atrocities of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Then replace "ideology" with "behaviour" or "lifestyle". You'd have a website telling people to judge the facts of homosexuality for themselves, those acts committed by people who identified as homosexual, pro- or anti-homosexual legislation and so on, as well as the same warnings about not mistreating or shaming anyone for being homosexual because they are still human, even though every sane person should be critical of the homosexual lifestyle.

Such a website would still come across as obsessive and creepy at the very least.

Arakhor, there are two problems with this post.

1. From my understanding, homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle'. It's no more a lifestyle than being tall or having brown hair is a lifestyle.

2. Did you intend to include people who are pro- or anti- legislation, as though anyone who is, for example, in favor of same-sex marriage or allowing gay/lesbian people to adopt children is also gay or lesbian?

A person can choose whether or not to believe in Islam. They can't choose whether or not to be homosexual.

 

[chijohnaok]

That was what was being discussed, and what you even referred to in your own post.

And no, you weren't "offering a definition for "jihad". You were apparently objecting to the one "from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia"".

Please show where I was "apparently objecting to the one "from the hateful Islamohpbic website know as "Wikipedia".

 

[Arakhor]

Valka, whilst I agree that homosexuality is not a lifestyle as we understand it today (as my post was intended to set up a hypothetical situation), any website discussing any subject in terms such as "any sane person should be be wary of X" is clearly letting their bias show and is setting themselves up for a massive conflict of interest if they then go on to discuss X.